MCQ 05 October 2024

Daily MCQs for Judiciary Prelims Exams - (05 October 2024)



Question/ Answer
Question1:- In which of the following cases the Privy Council made a distinction between ‘common intention’ and ‘similar intention’?
  • a) Barendra Kumar Chosh v. Emperor
  • b) Mahboob Shah v. King Emperor
  • c) Shrinivasmal Barolia v. Emperor
  • d) Bannu Mal v. Emperor
Answer is B is correct. It is important to consider the difference to give justice. Common intention requires a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds before a committing the act, while similar intention lacks pre-planning. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer.
Question2:- McNaughten case is related to which of the following section of the IPC?
  • a) Section 83
  • b) Section 84
  • c) Section 85
  • d) Section 86
Answer is B is correct. Refer Section 84 of IPC which corresponds with Section 22 of BNS, 2023 which talks about act of a person of unsound mind. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer.
Question 3:- Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartik Das Case is related to which of the following?
  • a) Issuance of commission
  • b) Attachment before judgment
  • c) Interim injunction
  • d) Affidavits
Answer is C is correct. Interim Injunction is a temporary court order that instructs a party to either initiate or cease a particular action or behaviour for a specified period of time. It can be either mandatory or prohibitory. They are provisional measures to maintain the current state of affairs before a full legal adjudication. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer.
Question4:- “Right to live with human dignity does not include right to terminate natural life”, was held in:
  • P. Rathinam v. UOI
  • b) Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
  • c) Rajendra Prasad v. State of UP
  • d) Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Answer is B is correct. Right to life is a basic natural right of human beings. In India, it is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 that is Part-III of the Constitution of India. The court ruled that the right to life does not encompass the right to die or be killed, and that the right to die with dignity should not be confused with the right to die an unnatural death. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer.
Question5:- “Carry forward” rule was held unconstitutional in the case of:
  • a) Devdasan v. UOI
  • b) B.N. Tiwari v. State of Mysore
  • c) State of Kerala v. N.M.Thomas
  • d) Blaji v. State of Mysore
Answer is A is correct. The “carry forward rule” was held to be unconstitutional in T Devadasan v. Union of India in 1964 as the reserved vacancies in one year had risen to more than 50%. Refer Article 16 of the Indian constitution. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer.
Question6:- Case of Kasturialal vs. State of UP is related to:
  • a) Fraud of state
  • b) Contractual liability of State
  • c) Vicarious liability of State
  • d) None of the above
Answer is C is correct. The whole idea of Vicariously Liability of the State for the torts committed by its servants is based on three principles: Respondeat superior (let the principal be liable), Quifacit per alium facit per se (he who acts through another does it himself), Socialization of Compensation. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer.
Question7:- Satyabrat Ghose v. Magneeram Bangur (1954SC) is a case on:
  • a) Mino’s contract
  • b) Consideratoin
  • c) Frustration
  • d) Contingent contract
Answer is C is correct. It is a landmark case in Indian contract law that deals with the doctrine of frustration contract. It established that when one party is unable to fulfil their duties due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control, it constitutes frustration of the contract. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer.

Syllabus

Test Series

Notification

Brochure

Result