Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Mark the incorrect proposition:
1. Set-off is a statutory defence to a plaintiff's action, whereas a counterclaim is a cross-action.
2. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
3. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
4. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counterclaim can exceed the plaintiffs claim.
5. Both set-off and counter-claim cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

Mark the incorrect proposition:
1. Set-off is a statutory defence to a plaintiff's action, whereas a counterclaim is a cross-action.
2. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
3. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
4. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counterclaim can exceed the plaintiffs claim.
5. Both set-off and counter-claim cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Correct Answer 2 only

Related Questions

Propositions are:
1. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
2. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
3. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counter-claim can exceed the plaintiff's claim.
In respect of the aforesaid which is correct:
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
Consider the following statement(s).
1. A defendant may set up, by way of a counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff any right or claim in respect of the cause of action accruing to him.
2. The counter-claim may be submitted by the defendant even after he has delivered his defence.
3. The counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Which of the following are the principal rules as to concurrent jurisdiction?
1. Concurrent as to pecuniary limit and the subject matter
2. Competency of the former court to be determined as on the date of the 'former suit' and not as on the date of the 'subsequent suit'
3. Competency of the trial court determination
4. Competence of court when there is a court with preferential jurisdiction
5. Both the suits are in revenue court, but appeals lie to different authorities
In order for that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the court which may decide that suit must have been?
1. A civil court of competent jurisdiction
2. A court of exclusive jurisdiction
3. A court of concurrent jurisdiction 'competent to try the subsequent suit'
4. A court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit
Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?
Consider the following statements:
1. Where the High Court calls for the record of any case in its revisional jurisdiction, it operates as a stay of such case before the subordinate court.
2. No second appeal shall lie in money suits where the value of the subject matter does not exceed Rs. 25,000.
3. A plaintiff cannot be allowed by the court to sue afterwards for any relief omitted by him in the suit.
4. A plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court.
Of the above statements:
In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?
A', an Indian citizen, enters into a contract with 'B', a US citizen based in the USA. Certain disputes arise under the contract, and 'B' files a suit in the matter in the civil court of New York. 'A' files a counter claim in the said suit. Subsequently, 'A' files a suit in the same matter in the jurisdictional Civil Court in New Delhi. Is the latter court barred from trying the suit?
A suit may be dismissed under Order 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
1. Where the summons is not served upon the defendant in consequence of the plaintiffs failure to pay costs for service of summons.
2. Where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appears.
3. Where plaintiff, after summons returned unserved, fails for 7 days to apply for fresh summons.
4. Where on the date fixed for hearing in a suit only defendant appears and he does not admit the plaintiffs claim.