CLAThacker

don't just crack CLAT, come hack CLAT with us.

legal reasoning doubts - get your doubt resolved on this thread

the following questions have been asked by Tanmayee Sahoo...see if any of you can answer these questions.

1.  subodh and manjeet hav been friends for long time .Manjeet, Who resides abroad ,comes down to see sobodh and the two agree to get married .just before the ceremony
Manjeet discover that  subodh suffers from EPILEPSY .she seeks to avoid
the contract on the basis of fraud.

PRINCIPLE
:-a person actively conceals a fact having knowledge of the fact ,with the intation to deceive or to induce a
person to enter into a contract is said to hav committed FRAUD.

(i)subodh has committed Fraud because he has not informe Manjeet of a material fact.
(ii)Subodh has committed fraud -manjeet being his friend and trusting
him to give the picture creates a duty on subodh 's part to disclose all
fact
(iii)subodh has not committed fraud because manjeeet shud hav taken care to ensure that subodh was healthy
(iv) subodh has   not committed  fraud because there was no active concealment on his part.


2. krishna and arjuna are arch enemies .once when arjuna's house is robbed
,he lodges  a criminal complaint reporting the same and in ordered to
take revenge and cause harm to krishna ,says that krishna is guilty of
the same .The police arrested krishna, investigates  the complaint and
makes a report to the  magistrate stating that krishna is not connected
with the crime .which results in the magistrate discharging krishna
.krishna sues arjuna for the tort of malicious procecution.

PRINCIPLE:-a person who institute a procecution against someone with out any reasonable cause for the same ,with a malicious intentation 
,is guilty of tort of malicuious procecution

(i) arjuna is guilty beause he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Krishna
(ii) arjuna is  guilty  because he didnt check before complaining that krishna was guilty of theft
(iii) arjuna is not guilty because krishna has not been procecuted .
(iv)none of the above

 thanking you

Views: 6763

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

while i agree with ur answer apoorva, i dont think the reason u wrote is right. principle just talks about coercion, but coercion did not take place. whether or not there was undue influence, illegal act on part of plaintiff etc are not relevant because principles are not given. no point applying those principles which are not given, u must apply the one given.

there's a doctrine in law which prevents anyone having committed a wrongful act from going to the court with respect to anything connected with the wrongful act. that could be another reason for holding the contract valid. but that principle is not provided, so if i give this as reasoning of my answer, it would be wrong.

Apoorva sharma said:
Tanmayee's question:---

Rama threatens to file a criminal care against Dinakar .Who the former
has caught red-handed committing a theft at his house .Dinakar afraid
of being jailed agrees to enter into a contract with Rama in
consideration for Rama not instituting the procecution ,can Dinakar
reject the contract?

PRINCIPLE:-Obtaining another party's consent by committing or
threating to commit an act forbidden by Indian Penal Code ,is
coercion,and a contract entered into by such means may be rejected by
the coerced person.

(i) the contract is valid because initiating a criminal procecution is not an act forbidden by the IPC.
(ii) Dinakar may reject the contract since he has not freely concented
to the contract because of the fear of the criminal prosecution .
(iii)the contract is Void because Dinakar never wanted to enter into a contract with Rama
(iv)none of these.


Ans. is 1].the contract is valid because initiating a criminal procecution is not an act forbidden by the IPC.

The contract will be valid as dinakar can't take a defense of undue influence and coercion as the act done by him was unlawful. The law prevents only lawful things. If dinakar complains he only will be punished and the contract between the two entered for a lawful purpose will be considered vaild. If they are making a new contract for illegal purpose then the contract can be void but if the contract is for legal purpose then it will be valid.
there is no such duty...unless manjeet asked about his health. there must be active deception to constitute fraud, which is missing here.

Apoorva sharma said:
Ans of 1]. should be 2].Subodh has committed fraud -manjeet being his friend and trusting
him to give the picture creates a duty on subodh 's part to disclose all
fact
this is correct. however, had prosecution (criminal proceeding in court) started based on the information given by arjuna, it would have constituted malicious prosecution.

Apoorva sharma said:
2](iii) arjuna is not guilty because krishna has not been procecuted ..Police proceeding does not mean prosecution started. Prosecution is not yet started that's why malacious prosecution will not work

Vishal Tripathi said:
The answers according to me should be as follows:

1. (ii) Subodh has committed fraud -Manjeet being his friend and trusting him to give the picture creates a duty on Subodh's part to disclose all facts.
**Because they shared a Fiduciary Relationship and Subodh had a 'duty' to disclose the essential fact.

2. (i) Arjuna is guilty because he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Krishna
** Since the police report had been placed before the magistrate, it would be said that the proceedings had started. So the condition for malicious prosecution is fulfilled.
Sir with regard to the second question:

Whatever material I have read, the conditions for malicious prosecution are fulfilled.

a) "says that Krishna is guilty of the same .The police arrested Krishna"
Krishna was arrested as a result of Arjun's allegations in the report he filed. He would not have been arrested had the information had not been given by Arjun.

b) "The police arrested Krishna, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the magistrate"
During the period while the case was being investigated, Krishna was in jail. The police compiled its report and placed it before the magistrate.

c) "Krishna is not connected with the crime .which results in the magistrate discharging Krishna"
The magistrate studied the report and concluded that the accused was not guilty and discharged him.

Sir what else is required for this to be a case of malicious prosecution?
strictly speaking, arresting does not trigger any prosecution. It is a part of investigation. prosecution starts when a magistrate takes cognizance of a case based on chargesheet filed by the police and commits it to the court having jurisdiction to start trial.

I know none of the material available in the market properly explains malicious prosecution - I have just finished editing the new volume of IMS material and this has been fully explained. from the look of the question, i just can not say that the prosecution has started just by naming a suspect, especially when no trial/prosecution has commenced.

A lot of things depend on the option. If the third option was not there then option (i) would have been better answer.

Vishal Tripathi said:
Sir with regard to the second question:

Whatever material I have read, the conditions for malicious prosecution are fulfilled.

a) "says that Krishna is guilty of the same .The police arrested Krishna"
Krishna was arrested as a result of Arjun's allegations in the report he filed. He would not have been arrested had the information had not been given by Arjun.

b) "The police arrested Krishna, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the magistrate"
During the period while the case was being investigated, Krishna was in jail. The police compiled its report and placed it before the magistrate.

c) "Krishna is not connected with the crime .which results in the magistrate discharging Krishna"
The magistrate studied the report and concluded that the accused was not guilty and discharged him.

Sir what else is required for this to be a case of malicious prosecution?
Thank you Sir. I now understand.
Since the charge sheet was not filed, there was obviously no prosecution.

I had one more doubt. Had the question used the word "acquitted" instead of "discharged". Would that have made a difference? I guess you are only acquitted after a trial?


Ramanuj Mukherjee said:
strictly speaking, arresting does not trigger any prosecution. It is a part of investigation. prosecution starts when a magistrate takes cognizance of a case based on chargesheet filed by the police and commits it to the court having jurisdiction to start trial.

I know none of the material available in the market properly explains malicious prosecution - I have just finished editing the new volume of IMS material and this has been fully explained. from the look of the question, i just can not say that the prosecution has started just by naming a suspect, especially when no trial/prosecution has commenced.

A lot of things depend on the option. If the third option was not there then option (i) would have been better answer.

Vishal Tripathi said:
Sir with regard to the second question:

Whatever material I have read, the conditions for malicious prosecution are fulfilled.

a) "says that Krishna is guilty of the same .The police arrested Krishna"
Krishna was arrested as a result of Arjun's allegations in the report he filed. He would not have been arrested had the information had not been given by Arjun.

b) "The police arrested Krishna, investigates the complaint and makes a report to the magistrate"
During the period while the case was being investigated, Krishna was in jail. The police compiled its report and placed it before the magistrate.

c) "Krishna is not connected with the crime .which results in the magistrate discharging Krishna"
The magistrate studied the report and concluded that the accused was not guilty and discharged him.

Sir what else is required for this to be a case of malicious prosecution?
yes, one is acquitted after a trial. however if the question maker is not careful, that would be a bad sign to judge the question on. there must be more information in the question to base your decision on than using the word acquitted.
thank u sir..thanx aporva 4 solving my doubts and i think in the question of subodh it is nt fraud because there was no active concealment .

Ramanuj Mukherjee said:
yes, one is acquitted after a trial. however if the question maker is not careful, that would be a bad sign to judge the question on. there must be more information in the question to base your decision on than using the word acquitted.
PRINCIPLE:-- Whoever by words ,signs,or otherwise brings into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the government established by law in india shall be punished with imprisonment for life .

FACT:--
In a public meeting Yashpal Reddy the leader of an opposition party thunders ."This is a government of scounderls bootleggers ans scamsters .They deserve to be unseated .teach them a lesson in coming election by voting them out of power ".The govt. is contempting to prosecute Yashpal Reddy.

i-Yashpal reddy is guilty of sedition for having made irresponsible and inflammatory statements against the govt.
ii-yashpal is not guilty of sedition as he is only exercising his freedom of speech in public
iii-yashpal is guilty of sedition as his statements would incite people to violence leading to breakdown of law and order

guys plzz reply soon...
Yashpal reddy is not liable for sedition. He is asking people to vote against the government and unseat them through a legitimate democratic process. this can not be sedition.



tanmayee sahoo said:
PRINCIPLE:-- Whoever by words ,signs,or otherwise brings into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the government established by law in india shall be punished with imprisonment for life .

FACT:--
In a public meeting Yashpal Reddy the leader of an opposition party thunders ."This is a government of scounderls bootleggers ans scamsters .They deserve to be unseated .teach them a lesson in coming election by voting them out of power ".The govt. is contempting to prosecute Yashpal Reddy.

i-Yashpal reddy is guilty of sedition for having made irresponsible and inflammatory statements against the govt.
ii-yashpal is not guilty of sedition as he is only exercising his freedom of speech in public
iii-yashpal is guilty of sedition as his statements would incite people to violence leading to breakdown of law and order

guys plzz reply soon...
PRINCIPLE 1:- Master is liable for the act of the employee/servent
PRINCIPLE 2:- The husband of the wife are not responsible for any commission of wrong on each other .

FACT:- H is a manager of hotel belonging to X.Because of the negligence of H ,a folding chair fell from the first floor to the ground floor injuring the Receptionist of the hotel ,name w ,who is the wife of H .W asks for compensation from X and H

i-Both X and H are liable to compensate W.
ii- X is only liable to compensate W
iii-H is only liable to compensate W.
No one is responsible
X is Only Liable.....

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Have Your Doubts Cleared!


It is never good to have doubts in your mind! Just ask a questions and the super intelligent CLAThackers, many of whom are writing CLAT this time and others who have cleared it already will answer your questions!

If you have doubts on logical reasoning or critical reasoning, ask here.

Legal reasoning doubts are answered on this thread!


Want to ask a GK question? try this thread!

Members

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Do you like CLAThacker?

© 2017   Created by Ramanuj Mukherjee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service