Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Principle: Even if a person suffers a loss, he will be entitled to receive compensation only if a legal right is violated.
Factual Situation: An English teacher in a famous 'English School' after having some rift with the management left the school and started a new 'Language School' very close to the English School. Many students of the English School left it and joined the new Language School. As a result, the English School suffered huge financial loss and hence filed a suit for compensation against the new school.

Principle: Even if a person suffers a loss, he will be entitled to receive compensation only if a legal right is violated.
Factual Situation: An English teacher in a famous 'English School' after having some rift with the management left the school and started a new 'Language School' very close to the English School. Many students of the English School left it and joined the new Language School. As a result, the English School suffered huge financial loss and hence filed a suit for compensation against the new school. Correct Answer The English School management will not succeed as there is no violation of any legal right

Related Questions

Principle: A plaintiff who suffers some injury will be entitled to receive compensation even if he suffers no loss.
Factual Situation: Reddy was a strong political worker of Party X. He was proceeding to the poling booth at about 7:30 am, to cast his vote in favour of Mr. Naik, his party candidate. On the way, the State Police officials suspected Reddy to be an anti-social element and took him into custody for questioning. Reddy pleaded with the officials that he was a genuine voter and had no previous criminal records and requested them to allow him to cast his vote. The officials allegedly detained him in custody till about 4:45 pm and thereafter released him, recording that they could not find any thing against him. By the time Reddy reached the poling booth the polling time was over and he could not vote for Mr. Naik. When the results were declared Mr. Naik got a Majority of over 6000 votes and Party X got the majority to form the Government. Reddy files a suit for compensation against the State.
In a suit for partition, a Memorandum of Family Settlement is filed and on this basis the partition suit is decreed, but even after disposal of the suit the original Memorandum of Family Settlement remains in the file of the partition suit, then in such situation whether in a suit for eviction by one of the original co-owner of a tenant of a shop of the joint property which has fallen to the share of that co-owner as per the decree passed on the Memorandum of Family Settlement, can the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement be filed and proved as a public document in the suit against the tenant?
If a + b + c + d = 4, then find the value of $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - a} \right)\left( {1 - b} \right)\left( {1 - c} \right)}}$$     + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - b} \right)\left( {1 - c} \right)\left( {1 - d} \right)}}$$     + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - c} \right)\left( {1 - d} \right)\left( {1 - a} \right)}}$$     + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - d} \right)\left( {1 - a} \right)\left( {1 - b} \right)}}$$     is?
If a + b + c + d = 4, then the value of $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - a} \right)\left( {1 - b} \right)\left( {1 - c} \right)}}$$     + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - b} \right)\left( {1 - c} \right)\left( {1 - d} \right)}}$$     + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - c} \right)\left( {1 - d} \right)\left( {1 - a} \right)}}$$     + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - d} \right)\left( {1 - a} \right)\left( {1 - b} \right)}}$$     is?
Consider the following set of legal propositions:
1. A person can claim damages for all wrongs he has suffered.
2. A person can claim damages for wrongs only if they are caused intentionally.
3. A person can claim damages for a wrong if it is caused by infringement of this legal right.
4. A person can claim damage even if he has suffered no loss.
Of the above propositions:
In a class of 100 students, every student has passed in one or more of the three subjects, i.e History, Economics and English. Among all the student, 24 students have passed in English only, 14 students have passed in History only 11 students have passed in both English and Economics only, and 12 students have passed in both English and History only. A total of 50 students have passed in History. If only 5 students have passed in all three subjects, then how many students have passed in Economies only?
Eight teachers of different departments - English, math, accounts, economics, geography, biology, chemistry and sociology went for a meeting. There are 2 rows. Each row contains 4 teachers. Teachers of biology and chemistry are sitting adjacent to each other. Opposite to chemistry teacher is accounts teacher who is at extreme left end of south face row. Teacher of English department is sitting somewhere in north facing row but not at any extreme end. Math teacher is sitting second to the right of accounts teacher. Economics teacher is not sitting opposite to biology teacher and not adjacent to English teacher. Where is economics department teacher sitting?
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
Seven people A, B, C, D, E, F and G live on separate floors of a 7-floor building. Ground floor is numbered 1, first floor is numbered. 2 and so on until the topmost floor is numbered 7. Each one of these having a different cars-Cadillac, Ambassador, Fiat, Maruti, Mercedes, Bedford and Fargo but not necessarily in the same order. Only three people live above the floor on which A lives. Only one person lives between A and the one having a car Cadillac. F lives immediately below the one having a car Bedford. The one having a car Bedford lives on an even-numbered floor. Only three people live between the ones having a car Cadillac and Maruti. E lives immediately above C. E is not having a car Maruti. Only two people live between B and the one having a car Fargo. The one having a car Fargo lives below the floor on which B lives. The one having a car Fiat does not live immediately above D or immediately below B. D does not live immediately above or immediately below A. G does not have a car Ambassador. Question : How many people live between the floors on which D and the one having a car Bedford ?
PRINCIPLES: 1. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.
2. When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of that person or by reason of misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defense against that act, which he would have if that act were an offence.
3. Everyone has the right to defend their life and property against criminal harm provided it is not possible to approach public authorities and more harm than that is necessary has not been caused to avert the danger.
4. If in the exercise of right of private defense against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defense extends to the running of that risk.
5. The right of private defense continues as long as apprehension of danger continues.
FACT: A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a housebreaker, attacks A.