MCQ 22 November 2023

Daily Static MCQs for Judiciary Prelims Exams - (22 November 2023)



Question/ Answer
Question1:- Asking to conduct test identification parade is a right available to?
  • 1. Accused and victim during investigation
  • 2. Accused only during investigation
  • 3. Police officer during investigation or trial
  • 4. It is the power of the police officer or the court to conduct it and no such right is available to anyone
Answer is 2 is correct. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Rajju (1971) the Court observed that “If the accused felt that the witness would not be able to identify them – they should have requested for an identification parade.” Thus, it approved the right to ask for Test Identification Parade by the accused. Therefore option (2) is the correct answer.
Question2:- Who is barred to interpret the contract whether it deals with the arbitration agreement or not or whether there is a clause dealing with arbitration?
  • 1. Single Judge Bench
  • 2. Judicial Magistrate First Class
  • 3. Three Judge Bench
  • 4. None of the above
Answer is 1 is correct. In Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited (2023) Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently allowed restoration of an arbitral award, noting that ‘it was not within the scope of the Single Judge u/s 34 of A&C Act to re-interpret the contract between the parties and substitute the finding of the Arbitrator’s despite it being plausible and well-reasoned.’ Therefore option (1) is not the correct answer.
Question3:- If no application is made by the parties to extent the time limit of the arbitrators for making award then whether court has power to suo moto extend the mandate of the arbitrators?
  • 1. No, court has no power to extend the time limit of arbitrators
  • 2. Yes, court has power to extend the time limit of arbitrators under section 29A of the Act
  • 3. Yes, court has power to extend the time limit of arbitrators under section 29 of the Act
  • 4. No, court has no power to extend the time limit of arbitrators under section 29A of the Act
Answer is 2 is correct. ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL (2023) Delhi High Court has held that ‘the Court exercising powers under Section 29A of the A&C Act is empowered to extend the mandate of the arbitrator even in cases where the application seeking extension of time is not made within the time limit fixed for the making of the award.’ Therefore option (2) is the correct answer.
Question4:- (A) Moses vs. Macferlan (i) Lord Haldane
(B) Sinclair vs. Brougham (ii) Lord Wright
(C) Fibrosa vs. Fairbarn (iii) Lord Mansfield
(D) Bhagwandas Kedia vs. Girdharilal Parshottamdas (iv) J. Shah
  • 1. A - (ii), B - (iii), D - (iv), C – (i)
  • 2. A - (i), B - (iii), D - (iv), C – (ii)
  • 3. A - (ii), B - (iv), D - (iii), C – (i)
  • 4. A - (iii), B - (i), D - (iv), C – (ii)
Answer is 4 is correct. Quasi-contracts are based on the principle of “Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura” which means ‘No man should grow rich out of another person’s loss.’ Therefore option (4) is the correct answer.
Question5:-Arrange the case laws from old to recent on the basis of date of judgment.
I. Tomaso Bruno Anr vs State Of U.P
II. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
III. Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh
IV. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal And Ors
  • 1. I, II, III, IV
  • 2. I, III, IV, II
  • 3. II,IV,III,I
  • 4. II, I, III, IV
Answer is 4 is correct. In Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru case (2005) court observed that certificate under Section 65B(4) is not a mandatory requirement further in Tomaso Bruno case (2015) court held that the contents of an electronic record may also be proved under Section 65 of Evidence Act by treating it as ordinary secondary evidence. In Shafhi Mohammad case (2018) the court held that “electronic evidence is admissible as long as it is ‘authentic and relevant’ and deemed it fit to relax the 'procedural requirement' of a certificate when the person adducing such electronic evidence was not in custody of the device.” Recently in Arjun Panditrao (2020) held “Shafhi Mohammad to be bad law and overruled it for being in contravention of the decision of the three judge bench in Anvar.” Therefore option (4) is the correct answer.
Question6:- An obligation to produce at least one attesting witness to proof execution of any document as per Proviso to Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act stands withdrawn if
  • 1. It is a registered document including wills
  • 2. It is an unregistered written document not being wills
  • 3. It is a registered written document including wills
  • 4. It is a registered written document not being wills
Answer is 4 is correct. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act talks about proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. As a general rule at least one attesting witness is required to prove its execution so as to make the document admissible as evidence in the court. But as per proviso to Section 68 of the Act, it is not necessary to call any attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document if the document is registered as per Indian Registration Act 1908 except it is a will or its execution is specifically denied by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. Therefore option (4) is the correct answer.
Question7:- Under the Constitution ‘Doctrine of Eclipse’ applies:
  • 1. to the post-constitutional laws but only in respect of non-citizens
  • 2. to all laws, pre-constitutional and post-constitutional
  • 3. only to the pre-constitutional laws but only in respect of non-citizens
  • 4. to the post-constitutional laws in respect of citizens only
Answer is 2 is correct. Doctrine of eclipse means any law which infringes Fundamental Rights are void to that extend. Therefore option (2) is the correct answer.

Syllabus

Test Series

Notification

Brochure

Result