AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) Legal-Aptitude: Questions 173 - 174 of 254

Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 254 questions. Access all new questions- tracking exam pattern and syllabus. View the complete topic-wise distribution of questions. Unlimited Access, Unlimited Time, on Unlimited Devices!

View Sample Explanation or View Features.

Rs. 200.00 -OR-

How to register? Already Subscribed?

Question 173

Appeared in Year: 2019

Question

MCQ▾

Delhi High Court has allowed the transgenders to register complaints of sexual harassment under which provision of Indian Penal Code?

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

Section 365

b.

Section 3.54 A

c.

Section 265

d.

Section 355 B

Question 174

Appeared in Year: 2018

Question

MCQ▾

Directions: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles:

(1) Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.

(2) The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima face answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

(3) A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to Insure his neighbour.

(4) The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent՚s action in causing the appellant՚s television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.

b.

Yes, the respondent՚s conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.

c.

The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.

d.

No, it cannot constitute private nuisance but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.

Developed by: