CLAT Legal-Aptitude: Questions 197 - 199 of 1066
Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 1066 questions. Access all new questions we will add tracking exam-pattern and syllabus changes. View Sample Explanation or View Features.
Rs. 450.00 or
Question number: 197
Appeared in Year: 2013
PRINCIPLES: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
FACTS: A and B were working in factory as unskilled laborers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.
The owner of the factory will be liable
A and the owner of the factory shall be jointly liable
The owner of the factory will not be liable
|d.||All of the above|
Question number: 198
Which of the following is the origin of the legal term sui generis?
Question number: 199
Appeared in Year: 2014
PRINCIPLE: Every person shall be liable to punishment under the Indian Penal Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions of the Code of which he shall be guilty within the territory of India. In other words, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction depends upon the locality of the offence committed, and not upon the nationality or locality of the offender.
FACTS: `X’, a Pakistani citizen, while staying at Karachi, made false representations to `Y’, the complainant, at Bombay through letters, telephone calls and telegrams and induced the complainant to part with money amounting to over rupees five lakh to the agents of `X’ at Bombay, so that rice could be shipped from Karachi to India as per agreement. But the rice was never supplied to the complainant.
Only the agents of `X’ had committed the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Code within India, as they were physically present at the time and place of the crime
`Y’ was also liable for the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Code within India, as he was physically present at the time and place of the crime
The offence of cheating under section 420 of the Code was committed by `X’ within India, even though he was not physically present at the time and place of the crime
The offence of cheating as per section 420 of the Code was not committed by `X’ within India, as he was not physically present at the time and place of the crime