AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) Legal-Aptitude: Questions 176 - 178 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 176

Appeared in Year: 2019

Question

Assertion-Reason▾

Assertion(Ꭺ)

The entries in the three legislative lists are not always set out with scientific precision.

Reason(Ꭱ)

The entries are not powers but only fields of legislation.

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

Both Ꭺ and Ꭱ are true but Ꭱ is NOT the correct explanation of Ꭺ

b.

Ꭺ is false but Ꭱ is true

c.

Both Ꭺ and Ꭱ are false

d.

Both Ꭺ and Ꭱ are true and Ꭱ is the correct explanation of Ꭺ

Question 177

Appeared in Year: 2019

Question

MCQ▾

A human wall was made up by women in Kerala as part of the State sponsored Initiative to uphold gender equality from ________ to ________

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

Thrissur, Kollam

b.

Kasaragod, Thiruvananthapuran

c.

Varkala, Thiruvananthapurarn

d.

Kollam, Maradu

Question 178

Appeared in Year: 2019

Question

MCQ▾

Legal Principles:

(1) Vicarious liability is when employers are hold liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment.

(2) A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. The question of whether a person is an employee depends upon the degree of control which the employer exercises over the worker.

Facts: Raja is a travel agent and possessed certain houses, which had an internal communication throughout, arid which were used for the purposes of his business. Ramesh looked after the houses, and lived in them for this purpose, but he was also a clerk in the Raja՚s pay at a set annual salary. He lived in the houses with his wife, a child, and a servant. The case concerned the payment of inhabited house duty. There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a “servant” or person occupying the premises “for the protection thereof” . Raja was claiming the exemption from tax liability by claiming that Ramesh was the servant. Decide whether Ramesh was a servant or an independent contractor?

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

Ramesh is not a servant as the premises was held purely for trade purposes. and as Ramesh՚s position was simply that of a caretaker.

b.

Ramesh is a servant as servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work.

c.

Ramesh is a servant as Raja can control his work of caretaker of the building as well as his job of clerk.

d.

Ramesh earned a salary per annum in his separate role as a clerk and merely enjoyed residence of the building with his family members. Thus, is an employee of the building owner for tax purposes.

Developed by: