Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. A settlement deed created a life interest in the disputed property in favor of the Hindu Woman. However, the woman considering it her absolute property bequeathed the disputed property through a Will amongst her legal heirs. Decide the legality of the woman's transfer of property via Will in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ("HSA"). a. She committed no error while bequeathing property through a Will. b. Life Interest created in her favor would not grant an absolute ownership right to the woman under Section 14(1) of HSA.c. She cannot bequeath the disputed property via Will because a restricted right of life interest created in her cannot transform into absolute ownership.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that when a Hindu woman is given only a restricted estate in property, she cannot claim to be the absolute owner due to the application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Hence, such a property cannot be bequeathed through a Will.KALLAKURI PATTABHIRAMASWAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS KALLAKURI KAMARAJU & ORS. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 906Hindu Succession Act | Life Interest Given To Woman Will Not Transform Into Absolute Ownership As Per Section 14 : Supreme CourtQ 2. A person declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., sought anticipatory bail in another criminal case contending his non-involvement in the crime. Decide.a. There can't be an absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail merely because a proclamation was issued under S. 82 of Cr.P.C.b. Circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued have to be looked upon while considering the anticipatory bail plea of the proclaimed offender.c. Both (a) and (b)d. No anticipatory bail would be granted to the accused against whom the proclamation was issued under S. 82 of CrPC.Answer: Option (c)Explanation: The Supreme Court recently noted that being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. does not impose an absolute bar on the accused from seeking anticipatory bail.ASHA DUBEY VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889No Absolute Bar For Proclaimed Offender To Seek Benefit Of Anticipatory Bail : Supreme CourtQ 3. A property was transferred via a settlement deed to the transferee requiring him to take care of the transferor and do charity work. Decide whether the requirements of taking the transferor's care and doing charity work would qualify as valid 'consideration' under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.a. No, the consideration has to be only monetary. b. Yes, consideration of taking care of the transferor and doing charity work is a valid consideration for the transfer of the immovable property.c. Taking monetary consideration ascertains the real value of the immovable property which non-monetary requirements can't offer.d. Both (a) and (c)Answer: Option (b)Explanation: The Supreme Court upheld a property transfer based on a settlement deed requiring the transferee to care for the transferors and perform charitable work. The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol rejected the argument that the consideration can only be in money. Instead, it justified the consideration of taking care of the transferor and doing charity work as a valid consideration for the transfer of the immovable property.RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. VERSUS RAMULU AMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 895'Consideration' Need Not Be Monetary: Supreme Court Upholds Settlement Deed Requiring Transferee To Care For Transferors & Do CharityQ 4. The Civil Court appointed a 'Court Receiver' upon noting that there was a 'prima facie case' warranting the receiver's appointment. However, the opposite party argued that the Court Receiver can't be appointed unless it is proved that the property would deteriorate without the Receiver's appointment. Decide.a. Prima facie case alone is not sufficient to appoint the Court Receiver. b. Prima facie case is sufficient to grant interlocutory relief but can't justify the appointment of the Receiver.c. For appointing the Court Receiver it needs to be demonstrated how the property would deteriorate without the Receiver's intervention.d. All of the aboveAnswer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court recently observed that expressions like "prima facie case" or "conduct" alone are insufficient to justify the appointment of a Court Receiver. The Court emphasized that a compelling reason must be provided, demonstrating how the property would deteriorate without the Receiver's intervention.HITESH BHURALAL JAIN Vs. RAJPAL AMARNATH YADAV & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 903Prima Facie Case Alone Insufficient to Appoint Court Receiver; Compelling Reasons Required : Supreme CourtQ 5. An arbitration clause was invoked by one party concerning a dispute arising from a Master Services Agreement (MSA) executed...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags