Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Which of the following instances can be held to be final orders?
1. An order of a High Court dismissing an appeal for the appellant's failure to furnish order
2. An order that an appeal had abated
3. An order in a revision reversing the dismissal of a suit and restoring it to the file of the lower court when such an order had the effect of reinstating a primary decree
4. An order refusing an application under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act 1 of 1877
5. An order passed by a High Court in insolvency proceedings

Which of the following instances can be held to be final orders?
1. An order of a High Court dismissing an appeal for the appellant's failure to furnish order
2. An order that an appeal had abated
3. An order in a revision reversing the dismissal of a suit and restoring it to the file of the lower court when such an order had the effect of reinstating a primary decree
4. An order refusing an application under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act 1 of 1877
5. An order passed by a High Court in insolvency proceedings Correct Answer All of these

Related Questions

Which of the following instances of order are decrees?
1. An order rejecting an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis for no suit has till then been filed
2. An order refusing leave to institute for accounts of religious endowment
3. An order under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 dismissing an application for the removal of trustee
4. An order on a settlement case under section 104 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act 3 of 1898 as the proceeding is instituted not by a plaint but by an application
5. An order made on an application to the District Court under section 84 (2) of the Madras Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927
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
Which of the followingconditions has to be satisfied for the application of Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963?
1. Both the prior and subsequent proceeding are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party
2. The prior proceedings had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith
3. The failure of the prior proceedings was due to defect of jurisdiction or cause of the nature
4. The earlier proceedings and later proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue
5. Both the proceedings are in Court
During the pendency of an appeal by the four defendants in the suit, one of the appellants (defendants) dies and no steps for substitution of his legal representatives are taken and the appeal in so far as it relates to the said appellant abates. The five respondents (plaintiffs) apply for dismissal of the entire appeal as abated. Answer whether:
The process of voluntary winding up of solvent company is now shifted from the Companies Act, 2013 to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with effect from 1st April, 2017. Which of the following differences apply?
1. Shifting of Powers from Official Liquidator to Insolvency Professional.
2. Jurisdictional Authority has been shifted from High Court to National Company Law Tribunal.
3. Governing sections, rules and regulations for Voluntary Winding has now shifted to Section 59 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
4. Timeline for carrying out the Voluntary Winding up process under the IBC is normally of 12 months.
Sub-sections (2) to (4) of the present Section 12, Limitation Act, 1963 refers specifically to which of the following types of proceedings?
1. Appeal
2. Application to leave to appeal
3. Application to revision
4. Application to review
5. Application to set aside an award
X had made some communications to his wife Y during their marriage under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, the correct proposition are:
1. X can be compelled to disclose such communications before the Court, if Y consents, in any proceeding.
2. X can be compelled to disclose such communication whether Y consents or not in any proceedings
3. Y can be compelled to disclose such communication whether X consents or not in a divorce proceedings between them
4. Y may be permitted by Court, if deems fit, to disclose any such communication in a criminal proceedings not between X and Y.
A' a resident of Mumbai has a website 'www.caravan.co.in' launched in 2015. 'A' has a business of apparels in Mumbai having a trade mark 'CARAVAN'. The website is accessible from Delhi. 'B' a resident of Hyderabad starts a website 'www.caravaan.co.in' in 2017 having the same business. The website of 'B' consists of a catalogue, a toll free number, and an email address. 'A' wants to file a suit for passing off of trade mark in Delhi.
1. 'A' can file a suit in Delhi on the basis of accessibility of website of 'B'.
2. 'A' cannot file a suit merely on the accessibility of website.
3. 'A' cannot file a suit in Delhi as the website of 'B' is not interactive.
4. 'A' can file a suit if 'B' specifically targets the forum state resulting in harm to 'A' in forum State.
Choose the correct option from below:
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
Rule: Courts are under an obligation to inform the parties where an appeal lies. A lower court judge pronounced a judgment after hearing lengthy arguments from plaintiff's and defendant's advocates. He did not inform the parties about the period of limitation for filing an appeal under latest amendment. The plaintiff failed to appeal on time and requested the higher court for condonation of delay on the ground that the lower court judge failed to fulfil his obligation as he was not informed about the appeal. Will the higher court consider this ground as sufficient cause for condonation of delay?