- Home
- /
- Law Exam Updates in India: Schedules, Key Announcements
- /
- Important MCQs Based On Latest...
Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
Yash Mittal
28 Sept 2024 2:12 PM IST
Q 1. The accused had preferred a petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him. The complainant protested stating that the proceedings could not be quashed because the quashing petition was filed after submission of the charge sheet. Decide.a. There's a prohibition for the High Court's power to quash the criminal case after filing the...
Q 1. The accused had preferred a petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him. The complainant protested stating that the proceedings could not be quashed because the quashing petition was filed after submission of the charge sheet. Decide.
a. There's a prohibition for the High Court's power to quash the criminal case after filing the charge sheet.
b. There's no prohibition for the High Court's power to quash the criminal case even after filing the charge sheet.
c. To prevent abuse of the process of law, the High Court can interfere even after filing the charge sheet if no case is made out in the charge sheet.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The court held that the High Court could interfere with criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process even after filing the charge sheet if the court believes that the charge sheet makes out no offence against the accused. [KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.]
No Prohibition Against Quashing Criminal Proceedings Even After Charge Sheet Is Filed: Supreme Court
Q 2. An arbitral award was refused to be interfered with by the District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Subsequently, the Appellate Court set aside the award under Section 37 of the Act on the ground that the view of the Appellate Court was a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal. Decide.
a. The Appellate Court erred in setting aside the award because the award can't be set aside merely because the Appellate Court's view was better than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal.
b. The Appellate Court's power under Section 37 of the Act is limited to the extent that the award can only be set aside if it suffers from illegality under Section 34 of the Act.
c. Both (a) and (b)
d. The Appellate Court did not commit an error as it exercises jurisdiction akin to normal appellate courts in vested in the civil courts.
Answer: Option (c)
Explanation: The award cannot be set aside merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement. The court added that the view taken by the Arbitrator needs to be accepted even if two views are possible, and there remains no scope of interference by the Appellate Court to take a different view for setting aside the award. [PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS M/S SANMAN RICE MILLS & ORS.]
Q 3. The plaintiff preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking an amendment to the plaint after a delay of one year. By way of an amendment application, the plaintiff wished to question the validity of the 'Will' based on which the 'right of succession' ought to be decided between the plaintiff and defendant. Decide whether the delay occurred in filing the amendment application would render it invalid.
a. Yes, the amendment application would be rendered invalid as the plaintiff should have questioned the 'Will's' validity in the Plaint itself.
b. Yes, the amendment application would be rendered invalid because the aspect introduced by the plaintiff even if remained undecided would not determine the issue between the parties.
c. The delay that occurred in filing an amendment application would not have much relevance because once the aspect introduced by the plaintiff remained undecided then it would not determine the issues between the parties.
d. Both (a) and (b)
Answer: Option (c)
Explanation: The Court observed that the delay occurred in preferring the application to amend the plaint post-commencement of the trial would not have an effect if due diligence was taken. The Court added that if the aspect introduced by the plaintiff remained undecided, which ought to be decided to determine the issues between the parties, then the delay that occurred in filing an amendment application would not have much relevance. Since, by way of an amendment application the plaintiff wished to question the validity of the 'Will' based on which the succession ought to be determined therefore the amendment application cannot be rejected just because the delay occurred in filing the same. [DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU VERSUS SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL) & ORS.]
Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Principles On Amendment Of Plaint : Supreme Court Explains
Q 4. An ex-parte order was passed against the defendant and was denied the right to file a written statement. Decide whether he can still lead evidence by examining the plaintiff based on the plaint and materials produced by the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the plaintiff's case.
a. Yes, the defendant can lead evidence by cross-examining the plaintiff to disprove his case.
b. The limited defence available to the defendant is not foreclosed even after the passing of an ex-parte order and failure to file written statements.
c. The right to cross-examine the plaintiff would be foreclosed upon passing of an ex-parte order against the defendant.
d. Both (a) and (b)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the failure of the defendant to file a written submission would not foreclose its right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses to prove the falsity of the plaintiff's case. The court said even if the defendant's right to file a written statement stands extinguished, it would not foreclose the defendant's right to lead evidence based on the plaint and the evidence led by the plaintiff. [RANJIT SINGH & ANR VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.]
Q 5. The accused challenged the High Court's decision to convict them for the offence of murder upon conversion of charges from Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused contended that the High Court did not dwell upon the distinction between common object and common intention while converting the appellants' conviction under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC to section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Decide in light of Section 464 of CrPC whether the conviction can be challenged solely on the grounds of conversion of charges.
a. To challenge the conviction solely on the grounds of conversion of charges, the convict needs to demonstrate that substantial 'failure of justice' is caused to him due to such conversion.
b. As per Section 464 of CrPC unless, in an appeal, confirmation, or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated no conviction can be challenged on the ground of conversion of charges.
c. When the convict was aware of the charges made against him and got a fair chance to defend themselves in the trial, therefore it could not be said that failure of justice was caused to the appellants warranting overturning of the conviction.
d. All of the above
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that to challenge the conviction based on the alteration of charges, the accused must demonstrate that substantial 'failure of justice' is caused to them by such conversion of charges. The Court held so while upholding the conviction of the appellants in a murder case where they were initially charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (Common Object) but convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC (Common Intention). [BALJINDER SINGH @ LADOO AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB]
Q 6. A sale deed was executed by the Appellant/co-owner with another person for the sale of the joint family property without the authorization of the respondent who happened to be another co-owner of the suit property. The respondent was not a party to the sale deed executed between the Appellant and the purchaser. The sale deed was declared void on the ground that the Appellant can only transfer his share in the joint family property and not the entire suit property without his share being determined by metes and bound. Decide in light of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) whether the respondent must seek cancellation of the sale deed even when the sale deed was declared void.
a. No, the respondent should not seek cancellation as it is not mandatory for a third party, against whom a sale deed is void, to seek its cancellation.
b. As per Section 31 of SRA, in every case it is not mandatory to file an application seeking a declaration of the sale deed as void especially when the person/Respondent was not a party to the deed.
c. Since an action instituted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for cancellation of an instrument is not an action in rem, an inference can be taken that the cancellation of the instrument as per this section will bind only the parties to the proceedings and will not operate against a person not party to the instruments.
d. All of the above
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”), it is not mandatory for a third party, against whom a sale deed is void, to seek its cancellation. In essence, the court said that when a sale deed is executed between the parties, a third person who was not party to the sale and affected by the sale deed cannot be asked to file a separate application seeking cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of SRA. [SK. GOLAM LALCHAND VERSUS NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES & ORS.]
Q 7. Decide whether a death sentence can be commuted to that of a fixed life imprisonment based on the convict's age at the time of the commission of an offence.
a. No, the age of the convict at the time of the commission of an offence would not have relevance while commuting the death sentence.
b. Yes, along with Convict's social and criminal background the convict's age at the time of the commission of an offence would be relevant while commuting the death sentence.
c. No, in the rarest of rare cases where the convict had committed a gruesome crime cannot benefit from commutation of a death sentence based on his age at the time of the commission of an offence.
d. Both (a) and (c)
Answer: Option (b)
Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the age of the convict at the time of the commission of an offence would be of relevance along with other mitigating circumstances while commuting the sentence of the death penalty. The Court was not inclined to accept the State's argument that the appellant's tender age could not form a basis for commuting the death sentence. Instead, the court had taken into consideration various mitigating circumstances along with the appellant's tender age while deciding the plea for commutation of sentence. [RABBU @ SARVESH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH]
Q 8. A motor car collided with the offending truck that was parked in the middle of the highway without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle to warn of the incoming vehicular traffic. Resultantly, the driver along with the passengers died on the spot. Thereafter, the legal heirs filed an application seeking compensation from the owner of the offending truck and the insurance company, their applications were allowed but the compensation was reduced upon noting that the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident is vicariously attached to the passengers. Decide.
a. The legal heirs of the deceased who died in the road accident can't be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car contributed to the accident.
b. The contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident can be vicariously attached to the passengers.
c. Compensation was rightly reduced as the driver of the vehicle materially contributed to the accident.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (a)
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the legal heirs of the deceased who died in the road accident can't be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car contributed to the accident. Referring to a precedent, the Court observed, "the contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be." [SUSHMA VERSUS NITIN GANAPATI RANGOLE & ORS.]
Q 9. A tenant claims ownership over the suit property based on the settlement with the landlord that if the tenant deposits the stipulated amount then the landlord's eviction suit would be dismissed. The tenant deposited the stipulated amount and claimed ownership over the property, consequently, the landlord contested the tenant's claim of ownership because the settlement didn't confer the ownership right over the suit property to the tenant. Decide.
a. No transfer of title is possible in the absence of a registered instrument.
b. The settlement arrived between the landlord and tenant that the tenant would not be evicted from the premise upon deposit of the stipulated amount could not confer the right of ownership upon the tenant.
c. The amount deposited by the tenant could not be termed as the payment of the sale consideration.
d. All of the above
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Court observed that by no stretch of the imagination, it can be concluded that the settlement recorded between the parties validates the transfer of property in the tenant's favor, and the amount deposited by the tenant could not be termed as the payment of the sale consideration. [BEENA AND ORS. VERSUS CHARAN DAS (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.]
Q 10. Recently, in which case does the Supreme Court observe that the clean acquittal of the accused after suffering long incarceration may give rise to a claim of compensation?
a. V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director
b. Felix Jerald v. State
c. Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI
d. None of the above
Answer: Option (a)
Explanation: A case of clean acquittal, where the accused had spent long years under custody as an undertrial, may give rise to a claim for compensation, observed the Supreme Court in the judgment granting bail to V Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case. [V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director]
(For feedback/suggestions, the author can be reached at yash@livelaw.in)
