Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
1. A plaintiff files a suit in October 2022 seeking enforcement of a contractual right arising from an agreement. The plaint itself states that the agreement was cancelled by the defendant in April 2016 and that the cancellation gave rise to the cause of action. The defendant seeks rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation. The plaintiff contends...
1. A plaintiff files a suit in October 2022 seeking enforcement of a contractual right arising from an agreement. The plaint itself states that the agreement was cancelled by the defendant in April 2016 and that the cancellation gave rise to the cause of action. The defendant seeks rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation. The plaintiff contends that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and can be decided only after trial. Which of the following is the most appropriate?
A. The plaint cannot be rejected since limitation is always a mixed question of fact and law.
B. The plaint may be rejected if, from its own averments, the suit is ex facie barred by limitation.
C. The court must consider the defendant's written statement before deciding limitation.
D. Order VII Rule 11(d) applies only where the statutory bar is expressly pleaded by the defendant.
Answer: B
Cause Title: N Asha Devi Versus R Aravind Kumar & Anr., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 849
Explanation: The Court said that while limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law which requires adjudication in trial, however, where the facts about the plaint being barred by limitation are glaring from the plaint averments themselves, the court must exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint at the threshold stage without waiting for a trial.
2. During the pendency of the anticipatory bail application, the Court passes an interim order stating: “No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.” The Investigating Officer thereafter completes the investigation and finds sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner. Which of the following is the most legally appropriate course of action?
A. The Investigating Officer is completely prohibited from filing a charge sheet until the interim order is vacated.
B. The Investigating Officer may file the charge sheet in accordance with law, as the interim protection primarily protects the accused's liberty from arrest and does not bar completion of investigation or filing of the charge sheet.
C. The Investigating Officer must terminate the investigation because the interim order prevents all further coercive investigative measures.
D. The Investigating Officer may file the charge sheet only after obtaining prior permission from the Court which granted interim protection.
Answer: B
Cause Title: ARUN KUMAR MANDAL @ ARUN MANDAL VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 860
Explanation: The Court clarified that while considering the scope of an interim order granting protection from coercive action, clarified that such protection does not prohibit the Investigating Officer from completing the investigation and filing a charge sheet if the investigation discloses sufficient material.
'No Coercive Steps' Order Does Not Bar Filing Of Charge Sheet : Supreme Court
3. A Will has two attesting witnesses, X and Y. The propounder proves that X is dead but fails to establish that Y is dead or otherwise unavailable. He seeks to prove the Will directly under Section 69, Evidence Act, 1872. Which is correct?
A. Section 69 may be invoked since one attesting witness is unavailable.
B. Section 69 may be invoked at the propounder's option, being an alternative to Section 68.
C. Section 69 cannot be invoked unless the unavailability of both attesting witnesses is established.
D. Section 69 may be invoked if the Will is registered.
Answer: C
Cause Title: PAZHANATHAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. VERSUS ALAMATHAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 813
Explanation: The Supreme Court has held that Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked as an alternative to the ordinary mode of proving a Will under Section 68. The Court said that ordinarily a Will must be proved under Section 68, it can only be proved under Section 69 once the propounder establishes that no attesting witness can be found for proving a Will under Section 68.
4. What is the correct legal principle regarding a composite first appeal under Section 96 CPC against a common judgment disposing of two suits filed by the same plaintiff?
A. A composite appeal is always barred because each decree requires a separate appeal.
B. A composite appeal may be maintainable, and the absence of separate memoranda, if otherwise required, is a curable procedural defect.
C. A composite appeal is maintainable only when both suits involve identical reliefs.
D. A composite appeal is maintainable only with the consent of all defendants.
Answer: B
Cause Title: BASSANNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. AND OTHERS VERSUS BHIMANNA AND OTHERS, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 800
Explanation: The Supreme Court has held that a composite appeal under Section 96 CPC can be maintainable against a common judgment disposing of two suits filed by the same plaintiff, particularly where the suits were clubbed and tried together.
Composite Appeal Against Common Judgment In Suits By Same Plaintiff Is Maintainable: Supreme Court
5. A suit and a counterclaim are decided by a single common judgment, resulting in separate decrees. The aggrieved party wishes to challenge both in appeal. Which of the following is correct?
A. Separate appeals are mandatory because two separate decrees have been drawn.
B. A composite appeal is maintainable only if a single decree is drawn in respect of both the suit and counterclaim.
C. A composite appeal is maintainable even where separate decrees are drawn, provided separate grounds are raised against each decree and court fees corresponding to both are paid.
D. A composite appeal is maintainable only against the decree in the suit and not against the counterclaim decree.
Answer: C
Cause Title: Basudev & Ors. Versus Sanjay Kumar & Ors. Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 792
Explanation: The CPC does not require separate appeals merely because separate decrees are drawn from a common judgment deciding a suit and counterclaim. A composite appeal is permissible, provided the appellant separately challenges the suit decree and counterclaim decree, sets out distinct grounds, and pays the requisite court fees for both.
6. After an arbitral award is passed, the award debtor challenges it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Can the award debtor, in exceptional circumstances, seek interim protection under Section 9 during the pendency of the Section 34 proceedings?
A. No, Section 9 becomes unavailable immediately after the arbitral award is passed.
B. No, because only an award holder can invoke Section 9 after an award.
C. Yes, as a matter of right, whenever a Section 34 application is pending.
D. Yes, but only where the award debtor establishes a rare and compelling case warranting interim relief to prevent irreparable prejudice and preserve the efficacy of the Section 34 challenge.
Answer: D
Cause Title: National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. Versus Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 791
Explanation: A post-award Section 9 application by an award debtor is maintainable in exceptional cases, but the threshold for granting relief is higher. The court may intervene where necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice or unjust enrichment and to preserve the effectiveness of the challenge under Section 34.
7. A Magistrate rejects an application under Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 175(3) BNSS seeking a direction for registration of an FIR. Subsequently, the police receive information independently disclosing a cognizable offence. Which statement is correct?
A. Police cannot register an FIR on the same allegations unless the Magistrate's order is first set aside.
B. Rejection of the application operates as res judicata and permanently bars registration of an FIR on substantially similar allegations.
C. Police may register the FIR, as rejection of the application under Section 156(3) does not extinguish their independent statutory duty to act under Section 154 CrPC / Section 173 BNSS.
D. Police may register the FIR only if the Magistrate, while rejecting the application, expressly permitted subsequent registration.
Answer: C
Cause Title: PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 829
Explanation: The rejection of a Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 175(3) BNSS application does not bar subsequent FIR registration by the police. The Magistrate's order at that stage does not adjudicate the merits of the allegations. The police's statutory duty to register an FIR upon information disclosing a cognizable offence flows independently from Section 154 CrPC / Section 173 BNSS, as affirmed in the Lalita Kumari ruling.
Police Can Register FIR Even If Magistrate Rejected S.156(3) CrPC Application : Supreme Court
8. A Trial Court does not frame a specific issue on a particular defence, but the pleadings, evidence and material on record are sufficient for the First Appellate Court to adjudicate that question. Which is the most appropriate option?
A. The First Appellate Court must remand the matter because every disputed question requires a separately framed issue.
B. The First Appellate Court may decide the question itself; remand is not to be ordered as a matter of ordinary course when the existing record is sufficient.
C. The First Appellate Court can decide the question only after directing the Trial Court to frame a fresh issue.
D. Absence of a specific issue automatically vitiates the entire trial.
Answer: B
Cause Title: SHIVAPPA VERSUS SHANTAVVA AND OTHERS, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 812
Explanation: An Appellate Court should not routinely remand a matter merely because a particular issue was not separately framed, if the question can be decided on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and material already on record. Remand is an exceptional course, not a matter of ordinary practice.
9. Assertion (A): Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that there was no ground to review the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment restoring the three-year minimum practice requirement for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Reason (R): According to Justice Chandran, the 2025 judgment was rendered by a coordinate Bench and therefore could not alter the law laid down by the earlier three-Judge Bench in All India Judges Association.
Choose the correct answer:
A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
B. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
C. A is true, but R is false.
D. A is false, but R is true.
Answer: C
Cause Title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 841
Explanation: Justice Chandran held that there was no ground for review of the 2025 judgment. However, he rejected the argument that the 2025 judgment could not alter the earlier decision merely because it was rendered by a coordinate Bench. He termed that argument “outrightly fallacious”, particularly in the context of the All India Judges Association case being a continuing mandamus concerning the improvement of judicial service conditions and judicial independence.
10. With reference to the Supreme Court's ruling on quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement, identify the INCORRECT statement:
A. The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the dispute has essentially a civil or commercial flavour and the real victim has settled the matter.
B. An informant who is not the real victim must necessarily be a party to the settlement before criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
C. The mere fact that an offence is non-compoundable does not, by itself, prevent the High Court from quashing proceedings in an appropriate case on the basis of a genuine settlement.
D. Where the real victim has categorically settled the dispute with the accused, the non-joining of an informant who is not the victim is not, by itself, fatal to a petition seeking quashing.
Answer: B
Cause Title: Anand Kumar @ Sanjay Lalwani Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 874
Explanation: An informant may set the criminal law in motion, but where the dispute is of a nature amenable to settlement, the real victim's consent is material; the consent of a non-victim informant is not necessarily required.