Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. The accused had preferred a petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him. The complainant protested stating that the proceedings could not be quashed because the quashing petition was filed after submission of the charge sheet. Decide.a. There's a prohibition for the High Court's power to quash the criminal case after filing the charge sheet.b. There's no prohibition for the High Court's power to quash the criminal case even after filing the charge sheet.c. To prevent abuse of the process of law, the High Court can interfere even after filing the charge sheet if no case is made out in the charge sheet.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: The court held that the High Court could interfere with criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process even after filing the charge sheet if the court believes that the charge sheet makes out no offence against the accused. [KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.]No Prohibition Against Quashing Criminal Proceedings Even After Charge Sheet Is Filed: Supreme CourtQ 2. An arbitral award was refused to be interfered with by the District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Subsequently, the Appellate Court set aside the award under Section 37 of the Act on the ground that the view of the Appellate Court was a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal. Decide.a. The Appellate Court erred in setting aside the award because the award can't be set aside merely because the Appellate Court's view was better than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal.b. The Appellate Court's power under Section 37 of the Act is limited to the extent that the award can only be set aside if it suffers from illegality under Section 34 of the Act.c. Both (a) and (b)d. The Appellate Court did not commit an error as it exercises jurisdiction akin to normal appellate courts in vested in the civil courts.Answer: Option (c)Explanation: The award cannot be set aside merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement. The court added that the view taken by the Arbitrator needs to be accepted even if two views are possible, and there remains no scope of interference by the Appellate Court to take a different view for setting aside the award. [PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS M/S SANMAN RICE MILLS & ORS.]S. 37 Arbitration Act | An Award Can't Be Set Aside Merely Because Appellate Court's View Is A Better View : Supreme CourtQ 3. The plaintiff preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking an amendment to the plaint after a delay of one year. By way of an amendment application, the plaintiff wished to question the validity of the 'Will' based on which the 'right of succession' ought to be decided between the plaintiff and defendant. Decide whether the delay occurred in filing the amendment application would render it invalid.a. Yes, the amendment application would be rendered invalid as the plaintiff should have questioned the 'Will's' validity in the Plaint itself.b. Yes, the amendment application would be rendered invalid because the aspect introduced by the plaintiff even if remained undecided would not determine the issue between the parties.c. The delay that occurred in filing an amendment application would not have much relevance because once the aspect introduced by the plaintiff remained undecided then it would not determine the issues between the parties. d. Both (a) and (b)Answer: Option (c)Explanation: The Court observed that the delay occurred in preferring the application to amend the plaint post-commencement of the trial would not have an effect if due diligence was taken. The Court added that if the aspect introduced by the plaintiff remained undecided, which ought to be decided to determine the issues between the parties, then the delay that occurred in filing an amendment application would not have much relevance. Since, by way of an amendment application the plaintiff wished to question the validity of the 'Will' based on which the succession ought to be determined therefore the amendment application cannot be rejected just because the delay occurred in filing the same. [DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU VERSUS SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL) & ORS.]Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Principles On Amendment Of Plaint : Supreme Court ExplainsQ 4. An ex-parte order was passed against the defendant and was denied the right to file a written statement. Decide whether he can still lead evidence by examining the plaintiff based on the plaint and materials produced by the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the plaintiff's case.a. Yes, the defendant can lead evidence by cross-examining the plaintiff to disprove his case.b. The...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags