Delhi Judicial 2007 Civil Law-I Question Paper
Delhi Judicial 2007 Civil Law-I Question Paper
Q. 1 “The registration of firms in India is entirely based upon the discretion of the firms or the partners concerned”. Comment on this statement.
What consequences would follow in case of an unregistered firm?
Q. 2 One of the partners of a partnership firm had retired from the firm on 10-4-2006. The firm continued carrying on business and took loan from a bank on 11-9-2006. As the firm failed to repay the loan, bank filed recovery proceedings where in the partner who had retired on 10-4-2006 was also impleaded as one of the defendants. Plea taken was that his retirement was not disclosed to the bank and impression was given that he continues to be a partner. The defence of the retired partner was that since he had retired, he could not be made liable and there was no basis for the bank to presume that he continued to be a partner as he had not signed any documents when the firm took the loan, whereas such documents were signed by other partners.
Whether the said partner would be liable/ Decide in the light of provisions of the Indian partnership Act, 1932.
Q. 3 ‘A’ rented out a premises to ‘B’ for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. He filed an eviction petition against ‘B’ under section 14(1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that ‘B’ had sublet the premises to ‘C’ for a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000. In reply to this eviction petition, ‘B’ challenged the maintainability of the said petition on the ground that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to try the case and a civil suit for possession, recovery and mesne profits only could lie.
Is the objection of ‘B’ legally correct? Elaborate with the help of case law while giving your views.
Q. 4 What do you understand by a ‘limited period tenacy’ under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? What considerations are required to be fulfilled for the creation of tenancy for a limited period? Discuss in the light of law laid down in the case of S. B. Noronah v. Prem Kumai Khanna, 1980 (1) SCC 52.
Q. 5 “The law may refuse to give effect to a contract on the ground of illegality; this is a limitation upon freedom of contract.”
Q. 6 As against the civil law countries, specific performance in India (which is a common law country) is a discretionary remedy. What are its parameters? Do you think that this discretion of the court be extended to movable goods, in the present day commercial set-up, where, in pursuance of a contract, one party has acted and manufactured goods only for the specific contract in question?
Q. 7 ‘A’, a Doctro, employed another Doctor ‘B’ as assistant for a period of 3 years on a salary of Rs. 3,000 per mensum. There was an agreement between ‘A’ & ‘B’ which provided that after the termination of his employment, ‘B’ shall not practice as a Doctor within a radius of 3 kms. Of ‘A’s dispensary for a period of three years and if ‘B’ did so, ‘B’ should pay Rs. 50,000 as liquidated damages. Immediately after the termination of his employment, ‘B’ started his practice as a Doctor next to ‘A’ s dispensary. ‘A’, thereupon, sued ‘B’ for the recovery of Rs. 50,000.
Q. 8 A wife filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws under sections 498A and 406 IPC. In those proceedings, a compromise was arrived at as per which the husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lacs to his wife in full and final payment in settlement of her claims towards stridhan, dowry etc. parties also agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. Wife also agreed in the said compromise that she will not claim any maintenance from her husband. Decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained by the parties. Husband also made a payment of Rs. 25 lacs. Thereafter, wife filed a petition for maintenance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The husband took the plea that wife was precluded from filing such a petition in view of the settlement between the parties. The contention of the wife was that there was a statutory right given to her to claim maintenance and agreement in question was against the public policy.
How will you decide the issue?
Q. 9 ‘A’, a Hindu is going to get married with ‘B’, another Hindu, on 1-10-2007. ‘P’, a Christian lady, filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain ‘A’ and ‘ B from getting married on the plea that ‘A’ had married with ‘P’ on 1-12-2006 in a temple according to the Hindu rites and as she was his legally wedded wife, he had no right to marry again.
Whether ‘P’ would be entitled to injunction, as prayed?
Q. 10 ‘H’ filed a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion against his wife ‘W-1’. He obtained ex-parte decree of divorce in the said petition on 7-6-1999. Thereafter, he married ‘W-2’ on 12-1-2000. At the time of marriage, he disclosed to ‘W-2’ that he was a divorcee and also showed her the decree of divorce. ‘H’ and ‘W-2’ lived together for two years. However, their relations became strained and ‘W-2’ had to leave the matrimonial house. ‘H’ filed divorce petition against ‘W-2’ in July, 2002. ‘W-2’ filed petition for maintenance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 against ‘H’ in September 2002. In December 2002, ‘W-1’ filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce, which ‘H’ had obtained against her on 7-6-1999, on the ground that she was not served with any summons and was wrongly proceeded exparte.
This application was allowed and decree of divorce was set aside in May, 2003. ‘H’ took up the defence in the maintenance petition filed by ‘W-2’ against him under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 to the effect that his marriage with ‘W-2’ was nullity and since ‘W-2’ was not his legally wedded wife, was not entitled to any maintenance.
Whether this plea of ‘H’ is sustainable in law?
Q. 11 What are the significant amendments made in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the year 2005 so far as rights of females are concerned?
Q. 12 ‘M’ (husband) married ‘W’ (wife) on 30-3-1997 according to Muslim rites. Both are Muslims. On 28-7-1998, both of them were separated. Within 5 months of the separation, ‘M’ got re-married. ‘W’ filed a suit against ‘M’ seeking dissolution of marriage under section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act (8 of 1939) on the ground of cruelty on the part of ‘M’. She has complained to incorporate the additional act of cruelty, namely, second marriage of ‘M’ which, according to ‘W’, caused a mental cruelty towards her.
In reply filed by ‘M’, he took up the plea that he was willing to co-habit with ‘W’ as well while continuing the second marriage and as a Muslim husband he could have more than one wife.
Whether in such circumstances, ‘W’ shall be entitled to a decree of divorce? Decide explaining the legal position.
Q. 13 The plaintiff, a food grain merchant enjoying good reputation, had incurred ill-will of a food inspector who falsely implicated him in case under section 7 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955. The plaintiff was arrested and detained for seven days before being put on trial in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who acquitted him. In the plaintiff’s suit for damages, the State of Punjab as well as the food inspector pleaded that since the prosecution was not mala fide and as the State was not liable for the act of the food inspector, the suit must fail.
Whether the State would be vicariously liable for the acts of the food inspector?
Q. 14 The plaintiff company had sought interim relief by way of an injunction against defendant from making defamatory statements containing highly derogatory expressions like conscience, conspiracy, loot of public money, siphoning off funds and unleashing senseless terror etc. The trial Court rejected the application of plaintiff on the basis of plea of justification raised by defendant. In appeal before High Court, plea taken by the plaintiff was that unlike the courts in England, the courts in India had a wider power to scrutinize the material rendered by defendant so as to test its veracity and to find out whether the said statement were bona fide or whether they were in public interest. It was thus pleaded that the trial Court did not look into this aspect and wongly refused the injunction.
Whether such plea of plaintiff would be sustainable or the defence of defendant that it had freedom of speech and expression should be accepted.
Q. 15 ‘W’, a married woman and mother of four children, did not want any more children. She, therefore, approached a government hospital and tubectomy operation performed. However, two years after the said operation, she apprehended conception as she had missed two successive menstrual periods. She went to a private doctor and was told that she was pregnant. The said doctor also advised her against abortion as she was too weak and it could endanger her life. She gave birth to a female child and filed a suit claiming Rs. 3 lacs as compensation against the government hospital as well as the doctor who had performed the sterilization operation.
What facts need to be proved by her to show negligence of the doctor and the government hospital? Answer with reference to case law.
Q. 16 On 20-3-1998, ‘N’, who is aged 3 years, visited National Zoological Park with his father and other family members. When all members of the family were keenly watching the white tigress, ‘N’ reached near the iron bars in which the said animal was kept. The latter, all of a sudden, grabbed his hand through the railing and pulled it in. The tigress had bit the right arm of ‘N’. In severe pain and agony, he was taken to the hospital situated in the zoo wherein the doctor expressed their inability to provide medical treatment. Thereafter, he was rushed to the All India Institute of medical Science (AIIMS) where ‘N’ was rendered disabled to the extent of 100% as his right arm was amputated upto 2 ½ inches from the shoulder to avoid loss of any of the limbs of his life. A suit for damages was filed by the father of ‘N’.
Decide whether it was the negligence of the three year old ‘N’ in reaching unto the railing and exposing himself to the risk of being attacked by the tigress or it was the negligence of the Zoo authorities in not taking proper care to ensure that such incidents do not take place.