Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. A settlement deed created a life interest in the disputed property in favor of the Hindu Woman. However, the woman considering it her absolute property bequeathed the disputed property through a Will amongst her legal heirs. Decide the legality of the woman's transfer of property via Will in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ("HSA"). 

a. She committed no error while bequeathing property through a Will. 

b. Life Interest created in her favor would not grant an absolute ownership right to the woman under Section 14(1) of HSA.

c. She cannot bequeath the disputed property via Will because a restricted right of life interest created in her cannot transform into absolute ownership.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that when a Hindu woman is given only a restricted estate in property, she cannot claim to be the absolute owner due to the application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Hence, such a property cannot be bequeathed through a Will.

KALLAKURI PATTABHIRAMASWAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS KALLAKURI KAMARAJU & ORS. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 906

Hindu Succession Act | Life Interest Given To Woman Will Not Transform Into Absolute Ownership As Per Section 14 : Supreme Court

Q 2. A person declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., sought anticipatory bail in another criminal case contending his non-involvement in the crime. Decide.

a. There can't be an absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail merely because a proclamation was issued under S. 82 of Cr.P.C.

b. Circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued have to be looked upon while considering the anticipatory bail plea of the proclaimed offender.

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. No anticipatory bail would be granted to the accused against whom the proclamation was issued under S. 82 of CrPC.

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court recently noted that being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. does not impose an absolute bar on the accused from seeking anticipatory bail.

ASHA DUBEY VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889

No Absolute Bar For Proclaimed Offender To Seek Benefit Of Anticipatory Bail : Supreme Court

Q 3. A property was transferred via a settlement deed to the transferee requiring him to take care of the transferor and do charity work. Decide whether the requirements of taking the transferor's care and doing charity work would qualify as valid 'consideration' under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

a. No, the consideration has to be only monetary. 

b. Yes, consideration of taking care of the transferor and doing charity work is a valid consideration for the transfer of the immovable property.

c. Taking monetary consideration ascertains the real value of the immovable property which non-monetary requirements can't offer.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: The Supreme Court upheld a property transfer based on a settlement deed requiring the transferee to care for the transferors and perform charitable work. The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol rejected the argument that the consideration can only be in money. Instead, it justified the consideration of taking care of the transferor and doing charity work as a valid consideration for the transfer of the immovable property.

RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. VERSUS RAMULU AMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 895

'Consideration' Need Not Be Monetary: Supreme Court Upholds Settlement Deed Requiring Transferee To Care For Transferors & Do Charity

Q 4. The Civil Court appointed a 'Court Receiver' upon noting that there was a 'prima facie case' warranting the receiver's appointment. However, the opposite party argued that the Court Receiver can't be appointed unless it is proved that the property would deteriorate without the Receiver's appointment. Decide.

a. Prima facie case alone is not sufficient to appoint the Court Receiver. 

b. Prima facie case is sufficient to grant interlocutory relief but can't justify the appointment of the Receiver.

c. For appointing the Court Receiver it needs to be demonstrated how the property would deteriorate without the Receiver's intervention.

d. All of the above

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court recently observed that expressions like "prima facie case" or "conduct" alone are insufficient to justify the appointment of a Court Receiver. The Court emphasized that a compelling reason must be provided, demonstrating how the property would deteriorate without the Receiver's intervention.

HITESH BHURALAL JAIN Vs. RAJPAL AMARNATH YADAV & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Prima Facie Case Alone Insufficient to Appoint Court Receiver; Compelling Reasons Required : Supreme Court

Q 5. An arbitration clause was invoked by one party concerning a dispute arising from a Master Services Agreement (MSA) executed between the parties. However, the application for the appointment of an arbitrator, filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed because the claim lacked merit and was deemed frivolous. Decide the outcome.

a. The dismissal was wrong as the referral court exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6) in dismissing the arbitrator appointment application. 

b. The referral court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act needs to confine its role to assess the 'prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement'.

c. Frivolity of the dispute can only be decided in arbitral proceedings, hence the referral court erred in dismissing the application deeming it frivolous. 

d. All of the above.

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891

S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court

Q 6. The teacher was accused of molesting a minor in an empty classroom and threatening her into silence. An FIR was filed under the IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act. However, a compromise with the victim's family led to the High Court quashing the FIR. Decide.

a. High Court erred in quashing FIR because matters related to sexual assault cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing.

b. Commission of POCSO offences cannot be taken lightly, such offences are bound to be taken as offences against society.

c. The societal impact of such crimes mandated that proceedings continue in the interest of justice.

d. All of the above.

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court today set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which quashed the 'sexual assault' complaint against a teacher (accused of rubbing the victim's breast). The High Court had quashed the matter based on a 'compromise' between the victim's father and teacher.

Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 865

Sexual Assault Under POCSO Can't Be Quashed Based On 'Compromise', Offence Is Heinous & Not Of Private Nature : Supreme Court

Q 7. Multiple plaintiffs entered into agreements to purchase properties from Janaki Devi. After her death, her legal heirs (the defendants) challenged the agreements, claiming they were unproven because one of the plaintiffs did not testify. The plaintiff argued that his absence should not result in an adverse inference, as his power of attorney holder (PoA), also a co-plaintiff, had already testified to the execution of the agreements. Decide the outcome. 

a. Plaintiff's failure to testify about the agreement's execution would be taken against him.

b. A power of attorney holder (who is also a vendee and a plaintiff) can't testify on behalf of another plaintiff on matters requiring his personal knowledge.

c. Since the plaintiff's power of attorney was present at the execution and is aware of all facts, the agreement's validity cannot be disputed based on PoA's deposition confirming its execution.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that when multiple plaintiffs are involved in an agreement to sell, a power of attorney holder (who is also a vendee and a plaintiff) may testify on behalf of another plaintiff on matters requiring his personal knowledge. The Court reasoned that since the power of attorney, who is also a plaintiff, witnessed the execution of the agreement to sell and had first-hand knowledge of the execution, therefore he can very well testify about matters requiring personal knowledge of the principal, such as the principal's state of mind or readiness and willingness to perform obligations under a contract.

SHYAM KUMAR INANI VERSUS VINOD AGRAWAL & ORS., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 883

Power Of Attorney Holder, Who Was Vendee & Witnessed Execution, Can Give Evidence On Agreement To Sell : Supreme Court

Q 8. Could the appellate court declare the suit for specific performance non-maintainable if the trial court failed to address the issue of maintainability and no declaration was sought to invalidate the agreement's cancellation?

a. No, the trial court's failure to frame the issue on maintainability would bar the appellate court from deciding the issue on maintainability.

b. Yes, nothing restrains the appellate courts from deciding the issue of jurisdictional fact to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief or not, provided no new facts/evidence are required at the appellate stage.

c. Appellate Court is barred from examining the existence of jurisdictional fact because the trial court did not frame an issue regarding maintainability.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: The Supreme Court has clarified that a higher court is not barred from examining the existence of jurisdictional fact merely because the trial court did not frame an issue regarding maintainability, provided no new facts/evidence are required at the appellate stage.

R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS. VERSUS T.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 911

Appellate Court Can Examine Existence Of Jurisdictional Fact Despite Trial Court's Omission To Frame Issue On Maintainability Of Suit : Supreme Court

Q 9. A father filed a complaint against a doctor and PGI, Chandigarh, claiming his minor son's vision worsened after surgery, dropping from 6/9 to 6/18 with double vision. The doctor and hospital argued the complainant failed to prove negligence as they followed the requisite medical professional standards. Decide.

a. A doctor adhering to accepted medical practices is not liable for post-surgery complications.

b. Post-surgery complications in the patient would make the Doctor liable for medical negligence.

c. A doctor is not liable for negligence because they possess the required skill and apply it competently by following the requisite medical professional standards.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court held that a Doctor who follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the discharge of duties would not be liable for the patient's post-surgery complications.

NEERAJ SUD AND ANR. VERSUS JASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) AND ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 863

Doctor Following Accepted Medical Practices Not Liable For Complications That Arise Post-Surgery : Supreme Court

Q 10. The complainant filed an FIR alleging the appellant sexually exploited her under a false promise of marriage and threatened her to continue the relationship or face harm to her family. The appellant sought to quash the FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC, but the High Court dismissed the petition, citing sufficient prima facie evidence. Decide.

a. High Court erred in not quashing the criminal case against the accused as non-materialization of a consensual relationship into marriage cannot be given a criminal color.

b. The High Court erred in concluding that the complainant lacked consent, mischaracterizing her as a victim of prolonged sexual assault.

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. High Court didn't commit an error in not quashing the FIR because sexually exploiting a woman on a false pretext of marriage amounts to an offence of rape.

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: Observing that the non-materialization of a consensual relationship into marriage cannot be given a criminal color, the Supreme Court today quashed a criminal case against the man accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage.

PRASHANT VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 904

Mere Breakup Of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Cannot Result In Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court

(For feedback/query, the author can be reached at yash@livelaw.in)