Answer is 1 is correct. An outgoing partner is liable to other partners and third party to the extent of his share in the firm till public notice is provided to public of his retirement according to Section 32(3) of Indian Partnership Act. Hence Z can sue all the partners as well as new partner [Section 31(2)] if new partner has agreed to be liable to the firm for obligations incurred before his admission and not otherwise. Therefore option (1) is the correct answer.

Answer is 1 is correct. At least 51% of the paid-up share capital must be owned by the government in order to make the company as a government company as per Section 2(45) of the Companies Act 2013. Therefore option (1) is the correct answer.

Answer is 4 is correct. Section 31(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act specifically states that “the arbitral tribunal may, at any time during the arbitral proceedings, make an interim arbitral award on any matter with respect to which it may make a final arbitral award.” Hence option (d) is a wrong statement. Whereas option (a) is mentioned under Section 31(1) of the Act, option (b) under Section 31(3) and option (c) under Section 31(5) of the Act. Therefore option (4) is the correct answer.

Answer is 2 is correct. Supreme Court on 1 st November 2023 in Birbal Nath vs. State of Rajasthan observed that statements recorded during investigation under Section 161 CrPC are previous statement recorded under Section 145 of Evidence Act; the same can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and not for corroboration. If there is any minor contradiction between these statements the same cannot discredit the witness as a whole. Therefore option (2) is the correct answer.

Answer is 3 is correct. Recently on 31 st October 2023 while acquitting a woman accused of killer her own child decided the question of what may be required of the convict in her statement under Section 313 of CrPC. To this court laid down 12 principles while reiterating various precedents in Indrakumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore option (3) is the correct answer.

Answer is 1 is correct. The ratio decidendi of a case is not the actual decision, or order, like guilty or the defendant is liable to pay compensation rather it is a reason for passing the decision which establishes precedents. Therefore option (1) is the correct answer.

Answer is 2 is correct. Court in Adamson v Jarvis held, so long as the party seeking the indemnity is innocent and is not aware of the unlawfulness of the act; they are entitled to be indemnified by the wrongdoer in respect of their losses. Therefore option (2) is the correct answer.