CLAThacker

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

I'll be posting few legal questions, seeing which you may feel- "has aadhya really taken for granted that we do not study??!! :O" 
but
but
but
don't think so, i'll post them just for a rewind and recap of all the concepts that we have learned.
these will be easy questions..so do not start turning the pages of your LA book... answer it yourself.. good luck :)

 

 

[ @IMS students: you might have seen these questions before, so do not try to be smart :P 
answer them ]

 

guys, it's really time now!!!! NOW OR NEVER!!

Views: 373

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

yes the interference was unreasonable
yes , although she is a sensitive plantiff but the interference was unreasonable
yes
i agree with shweta.
This is the question from my coaching mock-

I think the answer given is wrong
Try to solve--

Principle- No person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once.

Facts- Mr. Natwarlal, the Treasurer of Sikandar cargo Handling co. pvt ltd. was charged with misappropriating large sum of money from thew office funds. Besides a case of theft, departmental proceedings were also instituted against him for grave professional misconduct and other similar charges. He was convicted by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and sentenced to 3 years along with fine. The departmental Proceedings had been stayed till the disposal of Mr. Natwarlal's Appeal to the high court against the Order of the Magistrate. The high court affirmed the decision of the Magistrate. After he had served his sentence, the Departmental proceedings, which had been kept in abeyance till that time, were started again.
Mr. Natwarlal challenges the fresh institution of Departmental Proceedings in the High court. by the way of petition. What will happen?

1. Mr. Natwarlal is protected by the FR against double jeopardy, and hence would succeed in his writ.

2. The Departmental Proceedings would be rendered infructuos since he has already been convicted by the court, and also served the sentence imposed on him

3. Mr. natarwal would fail, since in the order of conviction, both the courts had left it open for Cargo co. to pursue actions again him.
i think the answer is 3

Mr. Natwarlal, the Treasurer of Sikandar cargo Handling co. pvt ltd. was charged with misappropriating large sum of money from thew office funds. Besides a case of theft, departmental proceedings were also instituted against him for grave professional misconduct and other similar charges.

 

i think  3 is the answer/...

 

plz explain.. y
these are social agreements n too trivial to claim.hence no

no

yes, i'll go wid shweta
no

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?

© 2019   Created by Ramanuj Mukherjee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service