MCQ 18 July 2025

Daily MCQs for Judiciary Prelims Exams - (18 July 2025)



Question/ Answer
Question1:- A factory emits smoke that causes discomfort only to one neighbor, not to the general public. This is an example of:
  • a) Public nuisance
  • b) Private nuisance
  • c) Trespass
  • d) No tort
Answer is b is correct. When an act unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of land of a specific person, it is a private nuisance, even if the act is not unlawful in general. Therefore, option B is correct.
Question2:- A person willingly attends a cricket match and is injured by a ball hit into the stands. Which legal doctrine protects the event organizers?
  • a) Res ipsa loquitur
  • b) Injuria sine damnum
  • c) Volenti non fit injuria
  • d) Strict liability
Answer is c is correct. This maxim means “to one who voluntarily consents, no harm is done.” By attending the match, the spectator accepts the ordinary risks involved. Therefore, option C is correct.
Question3:- Which of the following statements is correct regarding a minor in a partnership firm?
  • a) A minor can be a full partner and is personally liable for losses
  • b) A minor cannot be admitted even for benefits
  • c) A minor can be admitted only to the benefits of the partnership
  • d) A minor is personally liable for all debts of the firm
Answer is c is correct. As per Section 30, a minor cannot be a partner, but can be admitted to the benefits of the firm with the consent of all partners. Therefore, option C is correct.
Question4:- A retired partner is still liable to third parties for acts of the firm unless:
  • a) The partner retires with the consent of others
  • b) Notice of retirement is given to the public and concerned third parties
  • c) firm’s business is discontinued
  • d) The firm continues with a new partner
Answer is b is correct. Under Section 32, unless proper public notice is given, the retired partner remains liable for acts of the firm under the doctrine of holding out. Therefore, option B is correct.
Question5:- In Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant was held liable even though he had no intention to cause harm. This is an example of:
  • a) Negligence
  • b) Vicarious liability
  • c) Strict liability
  • d) Malicious prosecution
Answer is c is correct. The rule of strict liability holds a person liable for harm resulting from hazardous activities, regardless of fault or intention. No negligence needs to be proven. Therefore, option C is correct.

Syllabus

Test Series

Notification

Brochure

Result