Indian Law Comprehensive (UGC/NET)

Frustration of contract occurs when an unforeseen event destroys the fundamental basis of the agreement. The subject matter must become radically different or impossible to perform - not just harder or more expensive. Change of desire, consideration issues, or capacity problems don't constitute frustration.

Every crime requires actus reus (the act) and mens rea (intention). Motive is NOT essential - it's the personal reason for committing the crime, but you can be guilty without one. Punishment is the consequence after conviction, not part of the offense definition itself.

Aristotle distinguished distributive justice (fair distribution of goods in society) from corrective justice (remedying wrongs between individuals). This appears in his Nicomachean Ethics. Plato focused on ideal state structures, while John Stuart Mill wrote about utilitarianism.

To prove a dowry offense, prosecutors must show: (1) demand for dowry was made, (2) within 7 years of marriage (the 'dowry death' presumption window), and (3) there was cruelty or harassment specifically in connection with that demand. All elements together establish the offense under Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC 304B.

Section 17 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 grants immunity to registered trade unions from civil and criminal liability for any act done in good faith in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute. This protection ensures that trade unions can engage in legitimate trade union activities without fear of legal repercussions. Sections 15 and 16 deal with registration requirements, while Section 20 addresses matters related to rules of the union.

Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides for compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. This is the primary contractual remedy - it allows the injured party to claim damages that naturally arose from the breach or were in contemplation of both parties at the time of contract formation. Section 56 deals with frustration of contract, Section 65 with restitution of benefit under void agreement, and Section 37 defines agents' responsibility.

The Latin maxim 'qui facit per alium facit per se' means 'he who acts through another acts himself'. This maxim establishes the principle of vicarious liability, where a principal is held liable for the wrongful acts committed by their agent or servant in the course of employment. It is not related to the Indian Penal Code, Indian Contract Act, or general tort liability - it specifically addresses situations where liability is imputed from one person to another based on their relationship.

An offer must be specific and definite to be valid in contract law. It must clearly express the intention to create legal obligations and contain all essential terms. A general or vague proposal that lacks specificity cannot constitute a valid offer. The requirement of specificity ensures that the offeree knows exactly what is being proposed and can give informed consent. Offers that are incapable of communication or merely 'possible' fail this fundamental requirement.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the grounds of divorce appear in this order: Section 13 lists fault-based grounds (adultery, cruelty, desertion, etc.); Section 13A provides for breakdown (no resumption of cohabitation); Section 13B allows divorce by mutual consent; and Section 29 recognizes customary divorces. The Act was amended in 1976 to add the breakdown and mutual consent provisions. Option A correctly reflects this legislative sequence.

Talaq-ul-Biddat is the irrevocable form of talaq (divorce) under Muslim law. It is an innovative form not recognized by the Prophet but introduced later. It becomes effective immediately upon pronouncement and cannot be revoked. In contrast, Talaq-ul-Ahsan and Talaq-ul-Hasan are approved forms that remain revocable during the iddat period (waiting period). Talaq-i-Tafweez refers to delegated divorce where the husband delegates his power of divorce to his wife.

B has the right of private defence of property under Section 103 of the Indian Penal Code. This right continues until the property is recovered and extends to using necessary force to retake possession. While B used force causing injury to A, this was justified in recovering his own wrongfully taken property. The right exists even though some time had passed, as property recovery rights are not time-barred like self-defence rights. B would not be liable for the injuries caused during this lawful recovery.

According to the sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Penal Code, a child who commits a crime and is below the age of seven is not considered to have committed a crime.

A wagering agreement is one where two parties bet on the outcome of an uncertain event, with each agreeing to pay the other a sum of money depending on which view proves correct. Here, A and B are betting on a wrestling match result, which is classic wagering. Under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, wagering agreements are void. This differs from contingent contracts (which depend on uncertain events but are not pure bets) and unlawful agreements.

Under Section 103 of the IPC, the right of private defence of property does NOT extend to causing death when the offender is only likely to cause death (not actually committing an offence that warrants deadly force). Death can be caused only in cases of robbery, dacoity, house-breaking by night with dangerous weapons, or when the offence causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. Option B describes a situation where death is merely likely, not imminent through one of the specified offences.

Section 100 of the IPC enumerates six situations where the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death, such as when assault causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. Section 103 similarly lists four situations where the right of private defence of property extends to causing death, including robbery, dacoity, house-trespass, or mischief by fire. Together, these sections define when deadly force is permissible in private defence situations.

The chronological order of these treaties is: (iv) The Pact of Paris (1928, also known as Kellogg-Briand Pact), (iii) Convention on the Prevention of Genocide (1948), (ii) European Convention on Human Rights (1950), and (i) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951). This sequence reflects the post-WWII development of international human rights law, starting with renouncing war, then addressing genocide, establishing regional human rights protection in Europe, and finally creating the refugee protection regime.

Under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, marriage of a girl below 18 years is voidable at her option, not automatically void. This means the marriage remains valid until the girl (who was a child at the time of marriage) approaches the court to get it annulled. The law protects minors by giving them the right to challenge such marriages while also recognizing social realities.

Section 17 of the Trade Unions Act provides civil and criminal immunity to office-bearers and members of registered trade unions for actions done in good faith during trade dispute proceedings. This protection is limited - it covers only a specific section of labour force (those in registered unions) rather than all workers. The reason correctly explains that protection is restricted to union office-bearers and members, which directly supports why only a section of labour force is protected.

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, industrial disputes cannot be directly brought before the Labour Court by the parties themselves. The appropriate Government must first refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. This means that while both parties may be involved in the dispute, the formal mechanism for bringing it before the Labour Court is through government reference, not direct filing by aggrieved parties or mutual consent.

Jeremy Bentham is the founder of the Utilitarian theory of law and jurisprudence, which advocates that laws should aim for 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number.' Bentham's utilitarian philosophy focuses on consequences and utility as measures of legal and moral rightness. Kelsen developed the Pure Theory of Law, Henry Maine is known for historical jurisprudence, and Julius Stone is associated with sociological jurisprudence - none of them propounded utilitarianism.