Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
Q 1. A's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land is dismissed by the Trial Court. A files a first appeal and simultaneously applies before the Appellate Court seeking an interim order of status quo to prevent B from creating third-party rights over the property during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Court refuses, holding that no interim relief can be granted once...
Q 1. A's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land is dismissed by the Trial Court. A files a first appeal and simultaneously applies before the Appellate Court seeking an interim order of status quo to prevent B from creating third-party rights over the property during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Court refuses, holding that no interim relief can be granted once the suit itself has been dismissed, and relies on Order XLI Rule 5 CPC to deny relief.
Which of the following statements correctly reflects the legal position?
A. The Appellate Court is right; once the suit is dismissed, no interim order can be granted since there is no decree to stay.
B. Interim relief can only be granted if there is an executable decree; since the suit was dismissed, Order XLI Rule 5 CPC bars interim protection.
C. The Appellate Court can grant interim relief because an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and its powers are coextensive with the Trial Court; Order XLI Rule 5 does not apply when no decree is being executed.
D. Interim relief cannot be granted in suits for specific performance once the Trial Court rejects the relief, as it would amount to reversing the decree.
Answer: C
Cause Title: MOHAMMADHANIF MOHAMMADIBRAHIM PATEL & ORS. VERSUS PALLAVIBEN RAJENDRA KUMAR PATEL & ORS. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1138
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that an Appellate Court may grant interim relief even if the original suit has been dismissed, because an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and the appellate court has co-extensive powers to protect the subject matter. Order XLI Rule 5 CPC applies only when a decree is being executed, which is not the case when a suit has been dismissed.
Appellate Courts Can Grant Interim Relief Even If Suit Is Dismissed By Trial Court : Supreme Court
Q 2. A decree-holder conducts an auction sale of the judgment debtor's property after issuing a sale proclamation. The judgment debtor was duly served and participated in earlier steps but never objected to the proclamation, including the issue of whether only a part of the property could satisfy the decree. Two months after the auction is completed, the judgment debtor files an application under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, alleging material irregularity in not considering the possibility of a part-sale. Decide.
A. The application is maintainable because material irregularity can be raised at any stage before confirmation of sale.
B. The application is maintainable only if the judgment debtor shows substantial injury due to irregularity.
C. The application is barred because the ground could have been raised before the sale proclamation, and Order XXI Rule 90(3) precludes raising such belated objections.
D. The sale must automatically be set aside because failure to consider part-sale under Order XXI Rule 66(2)(a) is a jurisdictional error.
Answer: C
Cause Title: G.R. Selvaraj (Dead), through LRs. versus K.J. Prakash Kumar and others, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1141
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a judgment-debtor cannot, at a belated stage, assail an auction sale in execution proceedings, particularly once the sale has been completed. The Court observed that such a challenge is impermissible under Order XXI Rule 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure when the judgment-debtor had a prior opportunity to raise objections before the proclamation of sale was issued
Q 3. A complainant files an FIR alleging assault. After investigation, the police file a closure report, dropping A and B from the case. The complainant does not file any protest petition. Two years later, the same complainant files a fresh private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, now adding an additional offence under Section 308 IPC, seeking to re-summon A and B for the same incident. Which of the following correctly states the legal position?
(A) The second complaint is maintainable because adding a graver offence creates a fresh cause of action.
(B) The second complaint is not maintainable, as the same complainant cannot file a fresh complaint for the same occurrence after a closure report, merely by adding a new offence.
(C) The second complaint is maintainable only if the Magistrate records reasons for taking cognizance.
(D) The second complaint is maintainable because Section 200 CrPC allows multiple complaints by the same informant for the same incident.
Answer: B
Cause Title: RANIMOL & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1148
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that simply adding a new offence in a subsequent complaint concerning the same alleged incident after a closure report has already been filed in the original complaint, does not render the later complaint maintainable.
Q 4. A issues an account payee cheque to B (a company). B maintains its bank account at Ahmedabad (Home Branch) but, for convenience, deposits the cheque at B's branch in Surat. The cheque is later dishonoured by the drawer's bank in Mumbai. B wants to file a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Before which court does B have jurisdiction to file the complaint?
(a) The court at Surat, because the cheque was physically deposited there.
(b) The court at Mumbai, because dishonour occurred at the drawee bank.
(c) The court at Ahmedabad, where B maintains its bank account (home branch).
(d) B can file the complaint at any of the three places because NI Act provides multiple jurisdictions.
Answer: C
Cause Title: JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. Versus M/S HEG LTD., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1149
Explanation: As per Section 142(2)(a) NI Act and the Supreme Court ruling, a statutory deeming fiction treats the cheque deposited at any branch as deemed delivered at the home branch. Jurisdiction vests exclusively in the court where the payee's home branch is located.
Q 5. A debtor executed a registered sale deed in favour of X on 10 March 2022, and X took possession. Three months later, on 15 June 2022, a creditor filed a money suit against the debtor and applied for attachment before judgment of the same property under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, alleging that the sale was fraudulent and without consideration. Choose the most appropriate option.
A. The property can be attached because the creditor has alleged fraud; attachment before judgment protects the decree-holder.
B. The property cannot be attached because it had already been transferred prior to the filing of the suit; the creditor's remedy lies under Section 53 TPA, not Order 38 Rule 5.
C. The property can be attached because fraudulent transfers are automatically void under Section 53 TPA.
D. The court may attach the property only after determining whether the sale consideration was genuine.
Answer: B
Cause Title: L.K. PRABHU @ L. KRISHNA PRABHU (DIED) THROUGH LRs VERSUS K.T. MATHEW @ THAMPAN THOMAS & ORS., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1154
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a property transferred through a registered sale deed prior to the filing of a suit cannot be subjected to attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Q 6. A High Court, in 2021, appoints a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Both parties fully participate in the proceedings for nearly three years, and more than 70 hearings take place. When the matter is at the stage of final arguments, one party files a review petition before the same High Court, arguing that the arbitration clause was invalid. The High Court recalls its earlier Section 11 order and stops the arbitration. Which of the following options is legally correct?
A. The High Court may review its earlier Section 11(6) order because it is a court of record with inherent review powers under Articles 226/227.
B. The review is maintainable because the party raised a jurisdictional objection, which can always be raised at any stage.
C. The review is valid because participation in arbitral proceedings does not prevent a party from challenging the existence of the arbitration agreement later.
D. The High Court becomes functus officio after appointing the arbitrator under Section 11; no review or appeal lies, and the party could challenge the appointment only under Section 16 or Article 136.
Answer: D
Cause Title: HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. VERSUS BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1153
Explanation : The Supreme Court held that once an arbitrator is appointed under Section 11, the court becomes functus officio, and no review or appeal lies because the Act mandates minimal judicial interference. Objections must be raised under Section 16 before the tribunal or via SLP under Article 136, not by reopening settled issues through review after years of participation.
Arbitration | No Review Or Appeal Lies Against Order Appointing Arbitrator : Supreme Court
Q 7. A woman is shot by her husband and sustains serious injuries. While undergoing treatment, she gives a Section 161 CrPC statement to the police naming only her husband. Two weeks later, she gives another Section 161 statement alleging that her in-laws had instigated her husband to shoot her. She dies seven weeks after the second statement. During trial, the prosecution seeks to summon the in-laws under Section 319 CrPC, relying on her second statement as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The defence argues that the statement cannot be treated as a dying declaration because (i) death was not imminent when she made it, and (ii) no medical or magistrate certification accompanied the statement.
Which of the following is the correct legal position?
A. The statement cannot be treated as a dying declaration because a dying person must be under immediate expectation of death when making the statement.
B. The statement cannot be treated as a dying declaration unless recorded by a Magistrate with medical certification.
C. The statement cannot be used under Section 319 CrPC because the court must test the credibility of the evidence at the summoning stage.
D. The statement can be treated as a dying declaration because neither imminent death nor formal certification is a statutory requirement under Section 32(1) Evidence Act.
Answer: D
Cause Title: NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV Versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1171
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that imminent death is not a precondition for a statement to qualify as a dying declaration under Section 32(1), and no mandatory requirement exists for a Magistrate's or doctor's certification. What matters is whether the statement relates to the cause of death or circumstances leading to it.
Q 8. A Muslim woman, R, divorces her husband H in 2015. At the time of their marriage, R's father had given ₹5 lakh and certain gold ornaments to H, and these gifts were recorded in the marriage register (qabilnama). After divorce, R files an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, seeking return of the cash and gold. H contends that these gifts were given to him personally and therefore cannot be claimed by R after divorce. Which of the following is correct?
A. R cannot claim the gifts as they were given to the groom and not to her personally.
B. R is entitled to recover the gifts because Section 3(1)(d) includes all properties given at the time of marriage to secure the woman's financial protection post-divorce.
C. H is only liable to return the mehr, not other gifts received at marriage.
D. The claim must fail unless R proves that the gifts were physically handed over to her at the wedding.
Answer: B
Cause Title: ROUSANARA BEGUM VERSUS S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1160
Explanation: The Court held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to recover the cash and gold ornaments received by her husband from her father at the time of marriage under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (“Act”). It emphasized that the properties given at the time of marriage, as envisaged under Section 3(1)(d) of the 1986 Act, are meant to secure a divorced woman's future, and courts must adopt a construction that fulfills this protective intent.
Divorced Muslim Woman Entitled To Recover Gifts Given To Husband At Marriage : Supreme Court
Q 9. Asha is standing at the entrance of a busy municipal office compound, arguing with a contractor about delayed renovation work. During the altercation, Rakesh, a passer-by, begins recording a video of Asha on his phone without her consent. Asha files an FIR alleging voyeurism under Section 354C IPC, stating that her privacy was invaded and her modesty outraged. Investigation shows that Asha was fully clothed, in a public space, and not engaged in any act normally expected to be private. Which of the following is the correct legal position?
A. Rakesh is liable under Section 354C IPC because taking a woman's picture without consent automatically amounts to voyeurism.
B. Rakesh is liable under Section 354C IPC only if the recording was made with sexual intent, irrespective of whether the woman was engaged in a private act.
C. Rakesh is not liable under Section 354C IPC because the essential ingredient—capturing a woman during a “private act” where privacy is expected—is absent.
D. Rakesh is not liable under Section 354C IPC, but is automatically liable under Section 509 IPC for insulting modesty by making a video without consent.
Answer : C
Cause Title: TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS @ BUMBA VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1159
Explanation: The Court found that the essential ingredients of the offence of voyeurism were not made out in the present case, as the Appellants' act of clicking photos or making videos didn't intrude on her privacy as she was not engaged in any 'private act'.
Q 10. A obtains an ex parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell a plot of land from B in 2010. In 2012, A assigns the decree to C through an unregistered assignment deed and leaves the country. C files an execution petition seeking conveyance of the property. B's legal heirs object, arguing that the decree involves transfer of rights in immovable property, and therefore the assignment deed must be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and without a registered assignment deed, C has no locus to execute the decree.
Which of the following is the correct legal position?
A. The objection is valid because any assignment dealing with immovable property must be registered; the execution petition is not maintainable.
B. The objection is invalid because a decree for specific performance already creates proprietary rights, so assignment need not be registered.
C. The objection is invalid because a decree for specific performance does not create or transfer any right, title or interest in immovable property; therefore, its assignment does not require registration, and C can validly seek execution.
D. The objection is partly valid because only a certified copy of the assignment deed (even if unregistered) can be used for execution; otherwise, the assignment is void.
Answer: C
Cause Title: Rajeswari & Ors. Versus Shanmugam & Anr., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1122
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell can be validly assigned without registration, emphasising that such decrees do not themselves create any proprietary interest that would trigger the requirement of compulsory registration.