Related Questions

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is
Under Section 16 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, in a suit for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform. What is the meaning of 'readiness'?
In order to succeed in the suit for the specific performance of a contract for sale, the plaintiff has to aver and prove that:
Which of the following statements is/are correct in connection with malicious prosecution?
1. Malice is to be inferred from the acquittal of the plaintiff.
2. Malice is not to be inferred from the acquittal of the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff must prove independently of the acquittal that his prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause,
4. The plaintiff is not required to prove that his prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause.
Select the correct answer using the given below:
In a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale of immovable property, the plaintiff must aver and prove the following-
In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff has not claimed compensation for breach in substitution of such performance. The court concludes that though the defendant is in breach but the discretion implicit in the grant of relief of specific performance be not exercised in favour of the plaintiff. The court in such a situation,
A theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct?
To prove both the parts of the offence contemplated in Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, which of the following must be proved by the prosecution?
1. To prove the first part, the accused did abet the offence either by instigation or by conspiracy or by intentional aiding or by illegal omission.
2. To prove the first part, the offence was such which is punishable with imprisonment.
3. To prove the second part, the person abetted was a public servant during the period he was abetted.
4. To prove the second part, it was the duty of such public servant to prevent the commission of such an offence.
The plaintiff instructed his Banker to deposit excise duty on his behalf in the Govt. treasury and debit the current account of plaintiff. The Bank deposited the said sum in the treasury. Later the plaintiff came to know, that the said amount was embezzled by the Treasurer and the Accountant of the treasury and the amount was not credited in the name of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff brings an action against the State for damages then the State is: