Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. State whether it is permissible for the High Courts in a Second Appeal to create a new case for the parties while framing additional questions of law which were never raised in the pleadings.

a. No, the High Court cannot create such question of laws which were never a part of the pleadings.

b. Yes, the High Court had a wide power to frame any such additional issues which it find appropriate for the adjudication of the case.

c. Yes, the High Court can even frame such issues that were never part of the pleadings.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court held that the Courts at the Appellate stage of civil suits cannot create a new case for the parties while framing such additional issues that were never raised in the pleadings of the parties.

Civil Procedure Code | Appellate Court Can't Create New Case For Parties & Frame Issues Without Following Order XLI : Supreme Court

Q 2. In a marital dispute, an FIR was registered by the wife against her husband and in-laws. A chargesheet was filed against them, however the High Court refused to quash the pending criminal case under Section 482 CrPC. Decide whether the FIR could be quashed upon filing of a chargesheet.

a. No, once the chargesheet is filed then the FIR couldn't be quashed.

b. Yes, there's no bar for the High Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR if the court is satisfied that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

c. No, the High Court usually doesn't interfere in cases where the chargesheet is filed.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 28) recently reiterated that the high court is empowered under section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR even after a charge sheet is filed if the court is satisfied that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

High Court Can Quash FIR Even After Charge-Sheet Is Filed : Supreme Court 

Q 3. The Appellant filed an application seeking the rescission of a contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("SRA") against the failure of the decree-holder/respondent to pay the balance consideration of the sale amount. Since the Court that passed the decree also acted as the Execution Court, thus the Execution Court rejected the rescission application but permitted the decree-holder to deposit the balance consideration before the Execution Court.  Whether it is permissible for the Execution Court to permit the decree-holder to deposit the balance consideration under Section 28 SRA? Decide.

a. No, the application under Section 28 SRA could not be entertained in the Execution Proceedings.

b. No, the application under Section 28 SRA could only be entertained in the Original Suit in which the decree was passed.

c. Yes, the Executing Court could entertain an application under Section 28 SRA provided that it's the Court of First Instance that passed the Decree.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: Although the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("SRA") seeking rescission of a contract or extension of a time limit for deposit of a balance amount must be decided in the original suit where the decree was passed and not in the Execution Proceedings, the Supreme Court in a recent decision justified the Executive Court's decision to extend the time limit for payment of the balance amount consideration being payable by the decree-holder.

Specific Relief Act | Execution Court Can Entertain Application Under S.28 Provided It's The Court Which Passed The Decree : Supreme Court

Q 4. A husband has deserted his wife and filed a divorce petition before the Family Court which had passed a divorce decree in favor of the husband. Decide whether the Family Court can pass a divorce decree against the wife when no fault was attributed to her in the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

a. Yes, the family court didn't commit an error while passing a divorce decree against the wife even though no fault was attributed to her.

b. No, the family court committed an error in granting a divorce decree against the wife despite a finding of no fault on her part.

c. The husband cannot benefit from seeking annulment of the marriage when he was solely responsible for the marital relationship breakdown.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: In a recent case, the Supreme Court expressed dismay over the mechanical approach adopted by the Family Court in granting a divorce decree against the wife despite no fault being attributed to her. “The bogey of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party (husband in this case) who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship.”, the court said.

Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Can't Be Used To Advantage Of Party Responsible For Collapse Of Marriage : Supreme Court

Q 5. Based on the complaint filed by the complainant, proceedings were drawn up under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881 and the trial court ordered for conviction of the appellant. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment and the accused was acquitted. Following this, a Revision was preferred before the High Court under Section 401 CrPC, where, the High Court reversed the appellate Court's acquittal order and ordered conviction for the appellant. Decide.

a. The High Court committed an error in reversing the order of the acquittal to conviction as it could have remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court for re-appreciation if it believed that the acquittal was wrong.

b. Section 401(2) of CrPC restrains the High Court from reversing the order of the acquittal to conviction while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

c. High Court has wide power to order reversal of the acquittal to conviction and need not have remanded the matter to the Appellate Court for re-appreciation.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the High Court while exercising a Criminal Revision jurisdiction under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 442 of BNSS) cannot order a decision of acquittal to conviction. The Court said that if the High Court believes that the acquittal was wrong, then instead of reversing the acquittal it could have remanded back the matter for re-appreciation by the appellate court. 

S. 401 CrPC | High Courts Can't Convert Order Of Acquittal To Conviction Under Revision Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Q 6. The defendant had taken a loan from the plaintiff and submitted a title deed of the property towards the loan amount it had taken from the plaintiff. An agreement was entered between the defendant and the plaintiff that the defendant would execute a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff when the necessity arises for the plaintiff. However, no sale deed was executed by the respondent in Appellant's favor. Hence, a suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a preliminary mortgage decree against the defendant and the sale of the mortgaged property to recover the debt amount. Decide whether the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds created under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 in favor of the plaintiff.

a. No, the equitable mortgage was not created as the agreement doesn't stipulate about the creation of a mortgage.

b. No, the equitable mortgage was not created in favor of the plaintiff as the characteristics of Section 58(f) don't stand fulfilled.

c. Yes, the equitable mortgage was created because the title deeds of the property so produced by the defendant for the security towards the debt amount create an equitable mortgage by deposition of the title deeds entitling the plaintiff to sell the mortgaged property to recover the loan amount.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 29) held that the production of title deeds of the property as a security towards the debt amounts to the creation of a 'mortgage by deposit of title deeds' under Section 58 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”).

S. 58(f) TPA | Production Of Title Deeds As Security Towards Debt Amounts To Creation Of 'Equitable Mortgage' : Supreme Court

Q 7. The father of the divorced woman filed a complaint against her former in-laws for withholding her daughter's 'Stridhan'. However, while getting a divorce the couple had entered into an agreement whereby they had released each other from the liabilities and recorded that no claim would be entertained against one another. Decide whether the father has any locus to file a complaint.

a. The father had no locus to lodge a complaint against her daughter's former in-laws for withholding the 'stridhan'.

b. Father has no right to claim back the stridhan from former in-laws without daughter's authorization.

c. Daughter has absolute ownership over the stridhan, and no one can claim control and ownership over the same.

d. All of the above

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held recently that Stridhan is the exclusive property of the woman, and her father cannot claim recovery of Stridhan from in-laws without explicit authorization from her.

Woman Absolute Owner Of Stridhan, Father Cannot Seek Its Recovery From In-Laws Without Her Authorization: Supreme Court

Q 8. An application was filed by the accused under Section 211 of CrPC to recall the child victim of traumatic sexual assault for cross-examination. Decide whether the recall application would be maintainable even though the victim was already cross-examined by the accused.

a. Yes, there's no bar to file a recall application for cross-examining the victim by the accused.

b. No, the recall application would not be maintainable as a child victim of traumatic sexual assault cannot be called repeatedly to give her testimony as provided under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act.

c. Section 33(5) doesn't create an absolute bar to recall the victim for re-examination as a witness, each case must be looked at in the context of its facts and circumstances.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea of an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act of 2012 ("POCSO Act") seeking recall of the victim under Section 311 of CrPC who was already cross-examined by the defence. The Court said that once the defence was granted ample opportunities to cross-examine the victim than the victim could not be recalled for further cross-examination as it would defeat the purpose of the POCSO Act.

POCSO Act | Child Victim Of Traumatic Sexual Assault Must Not Be Repeatedly Called To Testify In Court : Supreme Court

Q 9. A driver of a mini lorry caused the death of a pedestrian by rash and negligent driving. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304A and 338 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer 2 years imprisonment. However, the Appellate Court altered the punishment to the period already suffered by him during his custody. Decide whether an alteration to punishment is permissible.

a. Yes, the alteration is permissible as there's no minimum sentence prescribed under Sections 304A and 338 of IPC.

b. The appellate court could not have altered the punishment because the accused/driver caused death due to rash and negligent driving.

c. The period suffered in custody could not be counted for altering the punishment.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: Noting that there's no minimum punishment of sentence prescribed for under Sections 304 A and 338 of the IPC, the bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upon placing reliance on the case of Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in LL 2021 SC 279 ordered for substitution of sentence to only fine.

'No Minimum Sentence Prescribed For Conviction Under S.304A & 338 IPC' : Supreme Court Alters Sentence In Negligent Driving Case

Q 10. Several employees who were promoted to a new cadre/regularized demanded the benefit of the regularization from the date on which the other employees of the same cadre were recruited by way of a direct recruitment process. In essence, the promoted employees claimed parity to the directly recruited employees whose recruitment was done way back from the date of their promotion. Decide whether the promoted employees can seek benefits of regularization same as received by the directly recruited employees.

a. Yes, the promoted employees are entitled to the same benefits of regularization as received by the directly recruited employees.

b. No, the promoted employees are not entitled to the same benefits of regularization as received by the directly recruited employees because employees promoted to a particular cadre cannot claim the benefits of promotion when they were not even born in the cadre.

c. There cannot be discrimination amongst the two categories of employees working at the same level as it would be against the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: In a recent case, the Supreme Court observed that employees promoted to a particular cadre cannot claim the benefits of promotion when they were not even born in the cadre.

Seniority Can't Be Granted To Promoted Employees From Past Date When They Weren't Born In Cadre : Supreme Court

(The author can be reached at yash@livelaw.in for feedback/suggestions)