AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) Legal-Aptitude: Questions 213 - 216 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 213

Appeared in Year: 2018

Question

MCQ▾

‘Drunken Driving’ is punishable under ________.

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

Motor Vehicles Act

b.

Indian Penal Code

c.

Road Safety Standards Act

d.

National Highways Act

Question 214

Appeared in Year: 2020

Question

MCQ▾

The Enemy Property Act applies to the property of people who took citizenship of China & Pakistan.

Question 94

Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 provides for which of the following powers to prevent the spread of an epidemic disease?

I. Inspection of person

II. detention of persons

III. penalties for disobeying provisions of the Act under Section 188,269 & 271 Indian Penal Code

IV. legal protection of implementing officers

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

II, III, IV

b.

I, III, IV

c.

I, II, IV

d.

I, II, III

Question 215

Appeared in Year: 2020

Question

MCQ▾

In February 2020, the Supreme Court has held that reservations in promotion, in government jobs, is not a fundamental right and refused to give directions to provide reservations to the government of which of the following States?

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

Uttarakhand

b.

Kerala

c.

Jharkhand

d.

Delhi

Question 216

Appeared in Year: 2020

Question

MCQ▾

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

Legal Principles:

(1) Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.

(2) The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant՚s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.

(3) The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendant.

(4) Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

(5) Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.

In 2005, the local council of Delhi approved building plans for the erection of a block of apartments. The approved plans showed the base wall and concrete foundations of the block to be three feet or deeper to the approval of local authority. The notice of approval said that the bylaws of the council required that notice should be given to the council both at the commencement of the work and when the foundations were ready to be covered by the rest of the building work. The council had the power to inspect the foundations and

require any corrections necessary to bring the work into conformity with the bylaws, but was not under an obligation to do so.

The block of apartments was finished in 2006. The builder (who was also the owner) granted 99-year leases for the apartments, the last conveyance taking place in 2010. In 2017 structural movements occurred resulting in failure of the building comprising cracks in the wall, sloping of the floors and other defects. In 2019, the plaintiffs who were lessees of the apartments filed cases for negligence against the builder and the council.

The plaintiffs claimed that the damage was a consequence of the block having been built on inadequate foundations, there being a depth of two feet six inches only as against the three feet or deeper shown on the plans and required under the bylaws. The plaintiffs claimed damages in negligence against the council for approving the foundations and/or in failing to inspect the foundations. Decide whether the council owed a duty of care to the claimants in respect of the incorrect depth of the foundations laid by the third-party builder?

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

There is no negligence in building the apartments as there is minor difference between a foundation which is three feet deep and a foundation which is two feet six inches deep.

b.

The tenets has a duty to inspect the property properly before entering into such a long lease agreement.

c.

The Council is liable for negligence as they failed to inspect the foundation.

d.

The Council is not liable for damages to the plaintiff as failing to inspect would not render the council liable unless it was considered that it had failed to properly exercise its discretion to inspect and that they had failed to ensure proper compliance with building regulations.

Developed by: