A' is the owner of a furniture shop and 'B' is employed in that shop as a delivery-man. In which of the following cases, 'A' would be liable in a suit filed by the injured plaintiff 'C' for the action of 'B'?<br>Case 1. One day, 'B' was on his delivery route when he met his friend 'D'. 'D' requested 'B' to drop him at the railway station as he was getting late for the train. 'B' drove very fast and while returning back from the railway station, 'B' negligently ran over 'C'.<br>Case 2. One day, 'B' was on his delivery route when he met 'D'. As both had met after long time, 'B' decided to have lunch with his friend 'D'. 'B' drove out of his way to a nearby restaurant and had lunch there. While driving back from there, 'B' negligently ran over 'C'.

There is only one rail track between stations A and B on a railway line. One hour after the northbound superfast train N leaves station A for station B, the southbound passenger train S reaches station A from station B. The speed of superfast train is twice that of express train E, while the speed of passenger train S is half of that of train E. On some one day train N leaves from station A to station B 20 minutes late than its usual schedule. Both Train N and Train S have increased their speed to maintain the schedule as per the table. If the superfast train doubles its speed, then what should be the ratio (approximately) of the speed of the passenger train to the speed of the superfast train so that the passenger train reaches the station on that day at the exact scheduled time.

A

1 ∶ 4

B

1 ∶ 5

C

6 : 1

D

3 : 17

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

A

Liable to be excluded on the ground that the plaintiff was prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith

B

Not liable to be excluded as the plaintiff cannot be said to be prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith

C

Liable to be excluded under section 14(3) of Limitation Act

D

To be excluded or not to be excluded is in the discretion of the court

A person starts from his home for collecting money from various shops A,B,C,D and E. After collecting money from shop A, he reaches shop B which is 12m to the west of shop A. Then he took a left turn to reach shop C which is 5m from shop B. Again he took two consecutive left turns, where he gets to go through the midpoint of shop A and shop B. Finally he reaches the shop E which is 3m North from the midpoint of shop A and shop B. What is the shortest distance between shop C and shop E?

A

8m

B

11m

C

10m

D

14m

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

A

1, 2

B

3, 4

C

2, 4, 5

D

All of these

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?

A

No, it cannot be because the original Memorandum of Family Settlement document which exists in the suit for partition which is disposed of, is a private document and not public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act

B

Yes, if a certified copy is obtained of the Memorandum of Family Settlement, and filed in the suit against the tenant, as the certified copy being issued by a court, is a public document

C

Yes, certified copy obtained from a court of the Memorandum of Family Settlement will be a public document provided that the suit was filed and disposed of by a High Court and not the District Court

D

Yes provided the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement is sought to be proved by the executants of the memorandum of settlement

What is correct about Panchayat election? i. There is one district election officer. ii. There are one or more returning officers. iii. State election commission appoints returning officer. iv. With the consent of commission District Election Officer can appoint returning officer. v. Naib Tahsildar may be returning officer for Janpad Panchayat. vi. Naib Tahsildar may be returning officer for Gram Panchayat. vii. Naib Tahsildar may be returning officer for Zilla Panchayat. viii. District election officer himself only returning officer.

A

i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi

B

ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii

C

iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii

D

i, iii, iv, v, vii, viii

E

None of the above

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?

A

The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the defendant

B

The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the police

C

The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from both

D

The plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages for malicious prosecution at all

Each question below is followed by two statements I and II. You have to determine whether the data given in the statements are sufficient for answering the question. You should use the data and your knowledge of Mathematics to choose the best possible answer. A train started from a point P towards Q and met with an accident after traveling 30 km, the speed of train got reduced after the accident and finally reached the destination 16 min late, then what is distance covered between P and Q? I. The train would have reached 21 min late had the accident happened 10 km after P. II. The train would have reached 12 min late had the accident happened 20 km before Q

A

if the data given in statement I alone is sufficient to answer the question whereas the data given in statement II alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

B

if the data given in statement II alone is sufficient to answer the questions whereas the data given in statement I alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

C

if the data in either statement I alone or in statement II alone is sufficient to answer the question.

D

if the data in both the statements I and II are not sufficient to answer the question.

E

if the data given in both the statement I and II are necessary to answer the question.

Principle: A defendant is liable for all direct consequences of his act or omission, which he could have reasonably foreseen as naturally flowing from his action.
Factual Situation: A bus driver was driving a bus along the BRT corridor in New Delhi. At a Bus stand he carelessly drove the bus resulting in hitting a railing and crushing a Marshall on duty at the spot. A lady standing at a distance, on hearing about the accident rushed to the spot and saw the injured covered in blood, hanging on a piece of the railing. The sight terrified the lady and as a result she fainted and had to be treated for nervous shock. The lady on recovery filed a suit for compensation against the driver and the owner of the bus.

A

She will succeed as the accident sight was really shocking and any body would have collapsed on seeing it

B

She will succeed only against the driver and not against the owner of the bus who did not foresee the accident

C

She will not succeed as the driver could not have foreseen the illness of the lady who came to the site

D

She will not succeed as she voluntarily went to the accident site

Louis has 3 routes to reach office. Route -1 is 5 km, route-2 is 7 km and route3 is 4 km. based on the traffic condition he takes different routes. Every Monday there is heavy traffic on Route-2 and Route-3 and Tuesdays and Wednesdays there would be multiple diversions on Route-1 and Route-3. Thursday and Friday he prefers to go by Route-3. Assume he works 5 days a week. In 4 consecutive weeks, how many days will he take Route-2 and how many kilometers will he have traveled on Route-2?

A

4 days, 28 km

B

8 days, 121 km

C

8 days, 112 km

D

4 days, 14 km

Related Questions