Judicial Service Exams: Question (MCQs) Based On Latest Judgements With Explanatory Answers

Q1. Which of the following contentious issues was decided by the SC in its decision in Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v. Union of India & Ors? a) Constitutional Validity of reservations for OBCs at NEET-UG level b) Constitutional Validity of reservations for OBCs at NEET-PG level c) Constitutional Validity of reservations for SCs at NEET-PG level d) None of the above Answer: b Explanation: The main issue in the case was as to reservation for OBCs in NEET-PG Courses. The same was upheld by the court and it observed as followed: "In our opinion, it cannot be said that the impact of backwardness simply disappears because a candidate has a graduate qualification. Indeed, a graduate qualification may provide certain social and economic mobility, but that by itself does not create parity between forward classes and backward classes. In any event, there cannot be an assertion of over-inclusion where undeserving candidates are said to be benefitting from reservation because OBC candidates who fall in the creamy layer are excluded from taking the benefit of reservation. Thus, we find that there is no prohibition in introducing reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) in PG courses." Q2. In a recent decision of Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi., it was held that: a) judgment delivered by larger bench to prevail irrespective of number of judges in majority b) judgment delivered by a five judge bench unanimously will prevail over a seven judge bench decision with the majority of 4:3 c) Either a and b d) None of the above Answer: a Explanation: The bench observed in this case that judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority-In view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court. It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority. Q3. Which of the following is true regarding the observation in the case of In Re Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138, Negotiable instruments Act, 1881? a) Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act b) Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act. c) Trial Court has inherent power to recall the summons under Section 138 d) None of the Above Answer: a Explanation: Supreme Court observed in the aforementioned case: Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act and findings to the contrary in Meters and Instruments Private Ltd and Another v Kanchan Mehta and others (2018) 1 SCC 560 do not lay down correct law. Q4. The recent landmark case of Union of India v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom deals with which of following laws? a) Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 b) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 c) Immoral Traffic Prohibition Act, 1956 d) None of the above Answer: a Explanation: The Court has declared the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which imposed a blanket ban on benami transactions, as unconstitutional for being "unduly harsh", "disproportionate" and "manifestly arbitrary". The bench observed that: "Section 3 (criminal provision) read with Section 2(a) and Section 5 (confiscation proceedings) of the 1988 Act are overly broad, disproportionately harsh, and operate without adequate safeguards in place. Such provisions were stillborn law and never utilized in the first place. In this light, this Court finds that Sections 3 and 5 of the 1988 Act were unconstitutional from their inception." Q5. In the landmark case of Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt Ltd. delivered last year, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier judgment to hold that: a) A delay of more than 120 days in filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 can be condoned. b) A delay of more than 120 days in filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be condoned. c) The delay can be condoned under Section 5Limiatation Act, 1963, however, not as a norm but as an exception d) Both a and c Answer: a Explanation: A two-judge bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat overruled its 2019 verdict in the case M/s NV International vs State of Assam which had strictly held that a delay of more than 120 days in filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be condoned. The Top...

Judicial Service Exams: Question (MCQs) Based On Latest Judgements With Explanatory Answers

Paras Ahuja

Tags