Indian Law - Legal Aptitude
Comprehensive quiz on Indian law covering contract law, criminal law, constitutional law, family law, and procedural principles. Features principle-fact based questions typical of law entrance exams.
Questions
The aim of proving a criminal case rests on the
- accused
- prosecution
- plaintiff
- defendant
The judge of a High Court can hold office up to the age
- 58 years
- 55 years
- 62 years
- 65 years
According to the India Majority Act, a major is a person who has attained the age of
- 18 years
- 21 years
- 15 years
- 16 years
Principle: An unconscionable transaction is a transaction in which a person in a dominant position makes unreasonable use of his position or power over the other party and enters into a contract, which is so much to his advantage that it “shocks the conscience” or makes an exorbitant profit of the other’s distress, without transgressing the boundaries of law.
Which of the following is not a suitable illustration of “unconscionable transaction”?
- During the floods in Uttarakhand, a vendor sells potable water for Rs. 100/150 ml.
- A money lender contracts to charge 60% interest to a farmer as a loan to have a tube well dug to irrigate his fields.
- A doctor demanded five times the normal fees to attend a patient who has severe fever.
- The army appropriates the houses of residents living near the border in anticipation of a major cease fire violation by the neighbouring country.
Principle: A “Contingent Contract” is a contract to do or not to do something if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen. Agreements contingent on impossible events are void.
Which of the following contracts is not a Contingent Contract?
- A contracts to pay B Rs. 10,000 if B’s house is burnt.
- A agrees to pay B a sum of money if a certain ship does not return. The ship sinks.
- A agrees to accompany B to USA next month if B pays for his travel and stay. A had been denied the visa thrice. However, he could apply again after 3 months.
- A agrees to marry B, whenever B gets a divorce. B is expected to get a divorce next year in January.
Principle: Whoever threatens another person with any injury to his reputation, property or physically, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which that person is not legally entitled to, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Which of the following can be a case of “Criminal Intimidation”?
- A pays B enough money to desist him from giving testimony against him in a court of law.
- A forces B to admit his crime in a court of law, else he might release the video taped recording of his wrongdoing to all by calling a press conference.
- A, for the reason of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house.
- A incites B, among others, to protest against the government’s recent hike in fuel prices, announced in the annual budget.
Principle: Ragging constitutes asking the students to do any act or perform something which such student will not do in the ordinary course and which has the effect of causing or generating a sense of shame or embarrassment so as to adversely affect the physique or psyche of a fresher or a junior student.
Which of the following can be termed as ragging?
- A, a fresher, is asked by his seniors to crack a joke which won’t make them laugh.
- A, a first year student in a medical college, is asked by his seniors to give an introduction.
- A, a first year student in an engineering college, is asked by his seniors to give an introduction, shouting a highly pitched “Unda De Ke” after each sentence.
- A, a first year student and an accomplished dancer, is asked to do Michael Jackson’s signature dance move “Moonwalk”.
Principle: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.
Fact: A, a trader, forgets his goods by mistake at his colleague B’s house. The goods, being perishable in nature, were consumed by B. A, knowing about the nature of goods, does not enquire further on the goods from B.
- B is not obligated to compensate A since goods anyway wouldn’t have lasted long enough to sustain transit.
- B needs to compensate A.
- A has no right to demand compensation.
- A should not demand compensation as he was the one who had forgotten his goods.
Fact: A resells a circular knitting machine to B without warranty. It turns out that the machine’s visual sensor missed sensing the alignment of fabric when the machine was operated at the highest rated speed. A was unaware of this defect since it was only rarely that this machine was operated at such high speed. B asks A to get the sensor repaired or recompense for the same.
Which of the following statements is valid?
- It is A’s responsibility to have the machine repaired for the defect.
- A is not bound to make any compensation or reparation.
- A is duty-bound to compensate B for the defect.
- A is guilty of defrauding B.
Principle: Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, shall also be liable to fine.
Fact: A, a money lender, thrashes a peasant for failing to pay the interest due to him in time on the money lent by him.
- A is not guilty of any offence as the peasant has failed to pay interest.
- A is guilty of offence as he voluntarily caused hurt to the peasant.
- A cannot be guilty of offence as the peasant may not pay up A for good.
- B is guilty of offence as he should have borrowed only so much as he could repay.
Principle: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "to wrongfully confine" that person.
Which of the following is a case of “wrongful confinement”.
- A constructs a makeshift roof in the common porch mutually shared by apartments of a group housing scheme in violation of apartment laws and thus, causing inconvenience as regards movement of the apartments’ residents.
- A locks her daughter Z in her room for fear she might flee with her lover.
- A, who has climbed atop his neighbour B’s roof, finds the ladder removed by B. A then happens to slide his way down using the sewage pipe.
- A blocks the road in front of his house to organise a party and happens to block the road for the residents living in homes along the street.
Right to Equality, before the law, is a/an
- civil right
- economic right
- social right
- political right
The Constitution gives the powers of superintendence over all subordinate courts to the High Courts under Article
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
A contract made without the free consent of one of the parties to it is voidable at its option.
David and Goliath agree to contract the deal. However, if David had known beforehand that there was a vein of ore on Goliath’s property, and then had made sure by undue use of his influence that Goliath did not come to know of it so that David could actually be able to buy the property at a much lower value than what the house would have been priced at. If properly assessed with the new discovery in mind, then would the nature of the contract change?
- It does not change the position as Goliath being the owner himself was not aware of the presence of the ore.
- Yes, the nature of the contract changes as this would constitute fraud on the part of David.
- No, the nature of the contract does not change as Goliath is not made to sell the property under any threat or force.
- The ore belongs to the government and the land should be handed over to the authorities.
The doctrine of caveat emptor – let the buyer beware, applies in certain contracts to the extent that even mere silence as to facts that would have otherwise affected the willingness of the party to enter into the contract, would not constitute fraud.
Ali sells at an auction to David, a horse which he knows is in unsound condition because of its age. He does not mention that fact to David. Does this constitute fraud by Ali?
- Yes, this constitutes fraud as Ali knows the horse’s unsoundness, which he knowingly concealed.
- No, this does not constitute fraud as the buyer is supposed to find out all possible defects in the commodity before purchasing it.
- No, this does not constitute fraud as horses do become unsound due to age and the buyer is supposed to know that.
- Yes, this constitutes fraud as Ali was under the duty to speak here, being in the position of a seller of a commodity and was legally bound to do so.
An invitation to offer does not constitute an offer.
Senor Abbey was taking his son Parak through the city of Bangalore during a fair. Parak saw a shop that was selling a very cute teddy bear and told his dad that he wanted it. Senor Abbey asked the shopkeeper its price and was told that it was not for sale. He was infuriated and told the shopkeeper that since he had put it out on display, he had to sell it as he was ready to pay any amount for it. The toy itself was quite unreasonably priced at Rs. 500, but he was ready to pay the amount. The shopkeeper still refused to sell the teddy bear.
Which of the following statements is true regarding the given situation?
- Since the toy was on display, it will be considered that it was up for sale.
- Since the price had been marked on the toy, it will constitute an offer.
- The toy was not for sale as the shopkeeper liked it a lot and wanted to take it for his son.
- Since the toy was on display, it was merely an invitation to offer and not an offer itself. The shopkeeper was free to not sell it.
Under Article 14 of the constitution, a state cannot arbitrarily discriminate between citizens.
The state of X land (having a constitution exactly similar to that of India), by a much publicised legislation, seeks to differentiate between ordinary citizens and prostitutes by giving the latter a special status owing to the nature of their profession and asking them to live outside the city as they are spoiling the image and character of the cities. The legislation is widely opposed saying that it falls foul of Article 14 of the constitution.
Which of the following is correct?
- It is not foul as the government is justified in improving the standard of life of the citizens under the Directive Principles of State Policy by protecting the image and character of the cities.
- It is not foul as prostitutes, by the very nature of their trade, should expect such actions from the government.
- It is foul as there is no legitimate connexion between the actions of the state and the objective sought to be achieved.
- It is foul as prostitutes are also citizens and deserve to be treated humanely.
Directions: The following question consists of legal proposition/principle (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle’) and facts. This principle has to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principle may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume it to be true for the purpose of the question. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle, except the principle that is given herein below for the given question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than the facts stated in the question. The objective of this question is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ‘most reasonable conclusion’ arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this question to test your knowledge of law.
Principle: The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Facts: ‘X’ from Madras offers, by a letter, to sell his TV to ‘Y’ in Delhi.
Which of the following is correct?
- Communication is complete as ‘X’ put the letter for transmission.
- Communication is complete when ‘Y’ reverts back to ‘X’ after receiving the letter.
- Communication is complete when 'Y' receives the letter at Delhi only.
- Communication is complete when ‘X’ puts the letter for transmission, whether 'Y' receives the letter or not.
Principle: Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. Any expression, be it written or spoken, that is intended to create hatred or contempt against the government of India is considered an act of sedition and the individual is booked under Section 124A of IPC.
Fact: A, leader of a populist Indian separatist party, made an inciting comment commending the act of 3 suicide attackers, having caused widespread killing on an Indian military camp as “Supreme Sacrifice” and labelled the three as "Martyrs".
- A is not guilty of sedition as A did not incite the attackers.
- A is guilty of sedition for being sympathetic to a cause contrary to national interest.
- A should be booked for sedition for calling the soldiers killed during the attacks “Martyrs”.
- A is guilty of sedition, having commented to infuse ill-will towards the nation.
Directions: The following question consists of legal proposition/principle (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle’) and facts. This principle has to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principle may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume it to be true for the purpose of the question. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle, except the principle that is given herein below for the given question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than the facts stated in the question. The objective of this question is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ‘most reasonable conclusion’ arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this question to test your knowledge of law.
Principle: Whosoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Facts: A, by pledging diamonds with ‘Z’ which he knows are not diamonds, dishonestly takes money from ‘Z’.
Which offence has ‘A’ committed?
- ‘A’ has committed the offence of criminal misappropriation of property.
- ‘A’ has committed the offence of forgery.
- ‘A’ has committed the offence of mischief.
- ‘A’ has committed the offence of cheating.
Principle: Coercion is the committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. It also includes the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property, to the prejudice of any person, whatsoever. The intention of the aforesaid acts is to force the other party to enter into an agreement.
Which of the statements given below does not exemplify coercion?
- A asks the keys of the bank’s safety vault by pointing a pistol at the manager.
- A asks B to hand over all his belongings else he might be shot.
- A, a creditor, threatens his debtor B that he would go to court in case the former does not make the payment due to him.
- A’s wife threatens to commit suicide unless A makes a will of all his property in her name.
The right of a husband to wife's company is called
- marital right
- conjugal right
- fundamental right
- None of these
Principle: A contract to do an act, which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void, when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.
Fact: A, who is married to B, contracts to marry C in the month of January, next year. A, meanwhile, immediately, files for divorce from his present wife. B contests the divorce for the next two years. Which of the following is valid?
- C can wait another year.
- A must make compensation to C.
- C must understand that getting a divorce takes time.
- A need not make any compensation to C.
Principle: Surrogacy is a method of reproduction whereby a woman (referred to as surrogate) agrees to carry a pregnancy and give birth as a substitute for the contracted party/parties. A surrogacy arrangement shall be governed by a contract amongst parties, which will contain all the terms requiring consent of surrogate mother to bear the child, agreement of her husband and other family members for the same, medical procedures of artificial insemination, reimbursement of all reasonable expenses for carrying child to full term, willingness to hand over the child born to the commissioning parent(s), etc.
Fact: A couple, been unable to bear to a child, finally decides to opt for a surrogacy arrangement with a young female C. The couple signs a contract to include all important issues with C. C, at the same time is involved in an intimate relationship with her boyfriend D. C conceives and her boyfriend D, coerces her to have an abortion, as he considered parenthood was too premature at the time.
Which of the following is valid?
- C should abort the foetus as asked by her boyfriend.
- C should take the baby to its full term as her surrogacy contract.
- C should undergo a paternity test and then decide the course of action.
- C should call off the contract and carry the pregnancy to its full term.
Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if at the time he makes it, he is capable of understanding it, and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests. Which of the conditions given below makes for a valid contract?
- A person suffering from minor interludes of insanity signs a contract during one such period.
- An idiot agrees to marry another idiot’s daughter.
- A person after taking drugs with liquor feels euphoric and signs off all his pending project contracts.
- A lunatic agrees to buy raw material for his new business in a period of sanity.
Principle: Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.”
Fact: Families of A and B go out on a vacation to Paris. One day, the husbands decide to swap their wives for a day. Having consummated this arrangement, the husbands would
- be guilty of adultery
- not always plan a vacation together for future
- not be guilty of adultery
- be guilty of annoying their wives
Principle: Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or to make derivative works that build upon it.
Which of the following can be considered as a valid act of “copyright infringement”?
- Copying content from book to make hand outs to be given to students in a college
- A popular TV broadcaster showing a recently released super hit movie on its channel
- Copying content from two books to publish a new book
- A local cable TV showing repeat highlights of World Cup
Principle: The expression “Desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
Which of the following is valid?
- A abuses his wife B and also keeps a mistress C in the presence of B. B is compelled to leave her matrimonial house. B is guilty of desertion.
- A’s wife B left him as she couldn’t adjust in A’s two room apartment which the couple shared with her in-laws citing lack of privacy. B is guilty of desertion.
- Post pregnancy, A’s wife decided to stay over at her parent’s house for better recovery and care. A’s wife is guilty of desertion.
- A, in a fit of rage, turned his wife B out of the house. B never returned to A’s house. B is guilty of desertion.
Directions: The following question consists of legal proposition/principle (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle’) and facts. This principle has to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principle may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume it to be true for the purpose of the question. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle, except the principle that is given herein below for the given question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than the facts stated in the question. The objective of this question is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ‘most reasonable conclusion’ arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this question to test your knowledge of law.
Principle: The word "document" denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means, intended to be used or which may be used as evidence of that matter.
Facts: A map or plan
Is it a document and admissible in evidence?
- It is not a document and cannot be used as evidence.
- It is a document and can be used as evidence.
- It is a document, but cannot be used as evidence in court.
- None of these
Directions: The following question consists of legal proposition/principle (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle’) and facts. This principle has to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principle may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume it to be true for the purpose of the question. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle, except the principle that is given herein below for the given question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than the facts stated in the question. The objective of this question is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ‘most reasonable conclusion’ arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this question to test your knowledge of law.
Principle: When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray.
Facts: Rajan is in the pub. Two guys begin fighting. They fight so hard that Rajan is afraid that he too will get injured.
Does the act of guys amount to affray?
- No, because Rajan didn’t get any injury.
- No, because Rajan is not a party to the act of fighting.
- Yes, because everyone is afraid of their fighting.
- None of these
- marital right
- conjugal right
- fundamental right
- None of these
Directions: The following question consists of legal proposition/principle (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle’) and facts. This principle has to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principle may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume it to be true for the purpose of the question. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle, except the principle that is given herein below for the given question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than the facts stated in the question. The objective of this question is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ‘most reasonable conclusion’ arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this question to test your knowledge of law.
Principles:
(1) A stipulation in a contract of sale with reference to goods which are the subject thereof may be a condition or a warranty.
(2) A condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated.
(3) A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages, but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated.
Facts: A contract might specify that ABC Co. will sell to XYZ Corp. 500 umbrellas for 50,000 on the stipulation that the umbrellas are inspected by XYZ Corp. for defects and their quality approved by that company.
Does the stipulation amount to condition or warranty?
- It is either a condition or warranty.
- It is a condition.
- It is a warranty.
- It is neither a condition nor a warranty.
Directions: The following question consists of legal proposition/principle (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle’) and facts. This principle has to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principle may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume it to be true for the purpose of the question. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle, except the principle that is given herein below for the given question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than the facts stated in the question. The objective of this question is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ‘most reasonable conclusion’ arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this question to test your knowledge of law.
Principle: No person shall be capable of being taken in for adoption unless the following condition is fulfilled:
- The adoption is completely valid.
- The adoption is completely void as a married person cannot be adopted.
- The adoption is voidable at the option of the adoptive father.
- None of these
Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
Which of the following options is correct?
- A slips on a banana skin thrown by an irresponsible pedestrian B and is helped up by B. B has committed an offence.
- A is shoved by B while boarding a crowded bus. B has committed an offence.
- A slips on a banana skin thrown by an irresponsible pedestrian B and fractures his arm. B has committed an offence.
- A is stepped on by B while buying vegetables in a busy flea market. B has committed an offence.