Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. The prosecution has registered a case against the Police Officer for filing a false case and fabricating the evidence. However, the accused police officer sought exemption from prosecution as no prior sanction was obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before prosecuting him. Decide.a. No Sanction is required to prosecute a public servant for acts committed by him that are not part of the official duties.b. Filing false cases and fabricating evidence are not part of the official duties of the police officer.c. The protection of Section 197 CrPC is available only for acts discharged in the course of official duties.d. All of the aboveAnswer: Option (d)Case Title: OM PRAKASH YADAV VERSUS NIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS, Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 989Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a police official who is accused of lodging a false case cannot claim that he cannot be prosecuted without sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since fabrication of evidence and filing bogus cases are not part of the official duties of a police official, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is not applicable to such acts, the Court explained. S.197 CrPC| Sanction Not Needed To Prosecute Police Officers Accused Of Lodging False Cases Or Fabricating Evidence : Supreme CourtQ 2. A compromise decree was passed by the High Court as per Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. However, one of the parties sought to restore the compromise proceedings upon filing a recall application before the High Court alleging breach of compromise terms recorded between the parties. Decide.a. Once compromise is recorded between the parties then it cannot be recalled.b. There's a complete bar on the filing of an appeal against the compromise decree.c. Filing a recall application would be the only remedy available against the compromise decree.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Case Title: NAVRATAN LAL SHARMA VERSUS RADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS, Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 985The Supreme Court ruled that if the compromise entered between the parties was not adhered to, there is no bar to filing a recall application seeking restoration of the proceedings under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The Court emphasized that the validity and legality of a compromise agreement can be challenged even after a decree is passed.Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Only Remedy Against Compromise Decree Is Recall Application Before Court Which Recorded Compromise: Supreme CourtQ 3. A specific performance of an agreement to sell was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. However, the Executing Court refused to grant the possessory rights to the plaintiff because a separate application under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking possession of the suit property was not filed. Decide the validity of the Executing Court's decision.a.There's no need to file a separate suit under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for transfer of possession when a transfer of possession is implicit upon execution of the sale deed.b. The decree-holder of the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell need not be required to file a suit seeking possession of the suit property under Section 22 of the Act.c. Both (a) and (b)d. Execution of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff would not grant possessory rights to the plaintiff unless claimed by the plaintiff under Section 22 of SRA.Answer: Option (c)Case Title: BIRMA DEVI & ORS. VERSUS SUBHASH & ANR., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 976Explanation: The Supreme Court reiterated that it would not be necessary for the decree-holder seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell simpliciter to file a separate application under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1962 (“SRA”) for claiming possession of suit property.Specific Performance Decree For Agreement To Sell Can Be Executed Without Separate Relief For Possession : Supreme CourtQ 4. A mortgagor mortgaged property to the mortgagee, retaining possession, with a condition that failure to redeem within three months would result in transfer to the mortgagee as a "mortgage by conditional sale" under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1992. The mortgagor failed to redeem and argued that since possession remained with them, it was a simple mortgage, not a conditional sale. Decide.a. The mortgage would be a 'simple mortgage' as the possession of the property remained with the mortgagor.b. It was the mortgage by 'conditional sale' as the property was mortgaged with a condition that the property would transfer to the mortgagee upon the mortgagor's failure to redeem the mortgage within the stipulated time frame.c. Mortgagor remaining in possession of the mortgaged property would not make a difference when there was a condition associated with the mortgage deed that upon failure to redeem the mortgaged property within the stipulated time frame would make the sale of mortgage property absolute in the mortgagee's favor.d. Both (b)...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers