Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. The High Court passed an interim order in a second appeal without framing a substantial question of law. According to the High Court, because the interim order was passed at the pre-admission stage by exercising its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC'), thus it was not necessary to frame a substantial question of law. Decide.a. The High Court didn't commit an error as the requirement for framing a substantial question of law arises only after admission of a second appeal.b. The High Court has wide discretionary power under Section 151 of CPC to pass an interim relief despite framing a substantial question of law.c. The High Court erred by passing an interim order without framing a substantial question of law, violating Section 100, which bars second appeals without such a questiond. Both (a) and (b)Answer: Option (c)Case Title: U. SUDHEERA & OTHERS VERSUS C. YASHODA & OTHERSExplanation: Observing that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot proceed without framing substantial questions of law, the Supreme Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order which granted interim relief in the plaintiff's favor without framing a 'substantial question of law'.S. 100 CPC | High Courts Cannot Pass Interim Order In Second Appeal Without Framing Substantial Question Of Law : Supreme CourtQ 2. A wife refused to comply with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights directing her to reside with her husband, citing his oppressive and cruel behavior as the reason for her decision. Determine whether she is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC despite her non-compliance with the decree.a. No, as per Section 125(4) of CrPC her failure to comply with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights disentitles her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(1).b. Yes, despite the decree directing her to live with her husband, she is entitled to maintenance as she had valid reasons for refusal because of her husband's cruel behavior.c. Wife's refusal to comply with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights on sufficient grounds would not absolve the husband of providing her maintenance.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Case Title: Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Versus Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and anotherExplanation: In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court held that a wife, even if she refuses to live with her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against her, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment observed that a wife's refusal to comply with the decree of conjugal rights passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on just cause would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.Wife Can Claim Maintenance From Husband Even If She Doesn't Live With Him As Per Decree On Conjugal Rights Restitution : Supreme CourtQ 3. Two accused individuals met at the scene of the incident and inflicted injuries on the victim. One, armed with a knife, caused more severe injuries than the other, who carried a chopper and inflicted less serious harm. The High Court reduced the conviction of the latter from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC, citing no prior common intention. Determine the appropriateness of this decision.a. The High Court erred in modifying the conviction because the degree of harm inflicted on the victim cannot be the basis for reducing the sentence when both accused acted with a common intention.b. The degree of injury inflicted on the victim can serve as a basis for sentence reduction, irrespective of whether both accused acted with a common intention.c. The High Court did not commit an error, as there was no prior meeting of minds to establish that both accused acted with a common intention.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (a)Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS BATTEGOWDA & ORS.Explanation: The Supreme Court noted that the severity of injuries caused by individuals acting with common intention cannot justify reducing a harsher punishment to a lighter one.When Accused Acted With Common Intention, Punishment Can't Be Reduced Merely Because Injury Inflicted Individually Wasn't Severe : Supreme CourtQ 4. Mr. X resigned from the directorship of the company before the company issued a cheque towards a legally enforceable debt that existed during his tenure as director. Determine Mr. X's liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882.a. Mr. X cannot be held accountable for the company's actions after his resignation.b. Since Mr. X resigned before the cheque was issued, he cannot be held liable.c. Both (a) and (b)d. Mr. X can be held liable because the cheque was issued to settle a legally enforceable debt that arose during his tenure as a director..Answer: Option (b)Case Title: ADHIRAJ SINGH VERSUS YOGRAJ SINGH AND OTHERSExplanation: The Supreme Court observed that the cheque issued after the retirement...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags