Self Studies

Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 39

Result Self Studies

Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 39
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
TIME Taken - -
Self Studies

SHARING IS CARING

If our Website helped you a little, then kindly spread our voice using Social Networks. Spread our word to your readers, friends, teachers, students & all those close ones who deserve to know what you know now.

Self Studies Self Studies
Weekly Quiz Competition
  • Question 1
    1 / -0
    An appeal shall lie from which of the following orders to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order:
    Solution
    Section 9 of CPC deals with the power of the court to try all civil suits unless barred. Section 96of CPC allows an appeal from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction ie.e under section 9 as well.
    section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act gives the grounds under which an arbitral award can be set aside. Section 37(1)(c) of the same act make it an appealable order.
  • Question 2
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Seema is an international wrestler and a member of the Mahabali Akhada in Thane, Maharashtra. The Mahabali Akhada has strict rules against doping and also on possession of Prohibited Substances. It had circulated to each of its members, a list of Prohibited Substances, including the substance Dexamethasone. On Tuesday, Seema caught a severe cold and her doctor prescribed her a cough syrup, Cofdex. Acting on her doctors advice, Seema requested her driver to get Cofdex from the local pharmacy. Naina, who happens to be a rival of Seema and also a member of the Mahabali Akhada, saw Seemas driver purchasing Cofdex from the pharmacy. Naina knew that Cofdex contains Dexamethasone and, on the same day, made an anonymous complaint to the Mahabali Akhada that Seema is in constructive possession of a Prohibited Substance. The next day, Seema took one dose of Cofdex and then checked the ingredients of the medicine. She found out that it contains Dexamethasone. She immediately reported to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada that she came in possession of the cough syrup and intends to surrender it since it contains Dexamethasone. On Thursday, the Anti-Doping Wing of the Mahabali Akhada requested Seema for her urine samples, which tested positive for the presence of Dexamethasone. 
    The Mahabali Akahadas Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances states the following: The actual, physical or constructive possession of a Prohibited Substance amounts to a violation of this Anti-Doping Code; provided, however, constructive possession shall only be found if the person knew about the presence of the Prohibited Substance and exercised control to acquire possession of it. Provided, however, there shall be no violation of this Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances, if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, the person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the person never intended to have possession of the Prohibited Substance and has renounced its possession by explicitly declaring it to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, the purchase (including by any electronic or other means) of a Prohibited Substance constitutes possession by the Person who makes the purchase.

    ...view full instructions

    Azim is a member of Mahabali Akhada, and one day, his son purchases an anti-inflammatory medicine from an e-commerce site using his fathers credit card and account but without his fathers knowledge. Has Azim violated the Mahabali Akhadas Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances?
    Solution
    The correct answer is (c) - no; Azim did not make the purchase and did not instruct his son to do so either. The facts dont suggest that Azim exercised control to make the purchase and he clearly did not make the purchase himself. Therefore, there is no violation of the Mahabali Akhadas Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances by Azim.
  • Question 3
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Due to the rise in popularity of drones, the Government announces a policy for regulating the use of drones. A spokesperson for the Government says that the operation of drones for commercial purposes will require a permit under law, except for those in the Nano category flown below a height of 50 feet and those in the Micro category flown below a height of 200 feet. (Nano: weight of less than or equal to 250 grams. Micro: weight between 250 grams and 2 kg.). He adds, however, that there will be certain No Drone Zones such as areas near airports, international borders, strategic locations, and military installations where operating drones will not be allowed. He also mentions that the remote pilot of a drone shall ensure that there is no trespass into private property and the privacy of a third party is not compromised in any manner and that trespass would include drones entering the private property of a person without being authorised to do so.
    Drone Boyz Co is a company that specialises in photography including photography with the use of Nano drones. Drone Boyz Co does not have any permit to operate drones. Mehek entered into an agreement with Drone Boyz Co to have her birthday party photographed. At the time of entering into the contract, the venue of Meheks birthday party was supposed to be her farmhouse on the outskirts of the city. However, due to a large number of her friends finding it inconvenient to travel till there, Mehek shifted the venue of the birthday party to her uncles bungalow adjoining the city airport a few hours before the scheduled time of the party. Drone Boyz Co assigned one of its employees, Rajat, to do the photography using drones. Rajat used a drone weighing 179 grams to do the photography of the event. However, the app on his phone with which the drone is controlled crashed and the drone ended up next to Robin, who lived in the neighbourhood. Robin saw the camera on a drone flash outside his bedroom and seeing that an unauthorised drone had entered into his property, Robin decided to disable and crush the drone and threw it into the air about 55 feet high and 35 feet away.

    ...view full instructions

    Assuming that Drone Boyz Co is charged with violating Regulations on operation of drones, which of the following is good defence for Drone Boyz Co to take?
    Solution
    The correct answer is (d) - none of the above. Rajat breached the Regulation of not operating drones in No Drone Zones in the course of his employment. Mehek did not require the photography of her birthday party to be done with the use of drones. The law makes the remote pilot of the drone responsible for trespass and breach of privacy, regardless of the cause leading to trespass or breach of privacy.
  • Question 4
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    A student of mathematics at Delhi University can now choose to simultaneously pursue any other degreecourse, say English Literature from IGNOU or any other institution.In a move to improve their career prospects, the University Grants Commission (the "UGC") has approved aproposal to allow students to pursue two degree programmes at the same time. One of the degrees has to bein the regular (that is, non-distance or online) mode and the other either in distance learning or online mode.However, this does not mean that a student can enrol in a Masters, Doctorate, or other advanced programmes before completing their undergraduate programme. A student can pursue two degrees in different streams as well as from different institutions. They may also opt for the same institution, provided it offers multiple modes of learning. As per the UGC, since there is a minimum attendance criterion attached to regular degree programmes, the second degree has to be through distance or online mode.

    ...view full instructions

    Komalika is in the same batch as Madhav, Sarala, and Hamsa at the NLU. Since she has a wide variety of interests in addition to her law studies, she decides to study Physics along with her law programme. She, therefore, enrols in an online Bachelors in Physics programme provided by a famous overseas university. When Sarala hears about this, she brings it to the attention of the Registrar of the NLU and argues thatKomalika should not be allowed to enrol in the Physics programme since it has no relation to her law studies, and Komalikas enrolment in the Physics programme violates UGC rules. Is Sarala correct?
    Solution
    The correct answer is (b) no, since the UGC rules do not place any restrictions on what stream the second-degree programme a student wishes to enrol for, relates to. The passage tells us clearly that A student can pursue two degrees in different streams as well as from different institutions. Given this, there is no bar on Komalika pursuing an online Physics degree programme while she is enrolled in the law programme at the NLU. Options (a), (b), and (c) all set out subjective statements that may or may not be right; however, none of them addresses the question of whether Komalikas enrolment in the Physics programme violates UGC rules, and therefore, none of them can be the correct answer.
  • Question 5
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Due to the rise in popularity of drones, the Government announces a policy for regulating the use of drones. A spokesperson for the Government says that the operation of drones for commercial purposes will require a permit under law, except for those in the Nano category flown below a height of 50 feet and those in the Micro category flown below a height of 200 feet. (Nano: weight of less than or equal to 250 grams. Micro: weight between 250 grams and 2 kg.). He adds, however, that there will be certain No Drone Zones such as areas near airports, international borders, strategic locations, and military installations where operating drones will not be allowed. He also mentions that the remote pilot of a drone shall ensure that there is no trespass into private property and the privacy of a third party is not compromised in any manner and that trespass would include drones entering the private property of a person without being authorised to do so.
    Drone Boyz Co is a company that specialises in photography including photography with the use of Nano drones. Drone Boyz Co does not have any permit to operate drones. Mehek entered into an agreement with Drone Boyz Co to have her birthday party photographed. At the time of entering into the contract, the venue of Meheks birthday party was supposed to be her farmhouse on the outskirts of the city. However, due to a large number of her friends finding it inconvenient to travel till there, Mehek shifted the venue of the birthday party to her uncles bungalow adjoining the city airport a few hours before the scheduled time of the party. Drone Boyz Co assigned one of its employees, Rajat, to do the photography using drones. Rajat used a drone weighing 179 grams to do the photography of the event. However, the app on his phone with which the drone is controlled crashed and the drone ended up next to Robin, who lived in the neighbourhood. Robin saw the camera on a drone flash outside his bedroom and seeing that an unauthorised drone had entered into his property, Robin decided to disable and crush the drone and threw it into the air about 55 feet high and 35 feet away.

    ...view full instructions

    Drone Boyz Co intends to acquire a drone weighing 250 gm to photograph a football match. It intends to fly the drone to the roof of a pavilion at the football stadium that is at a height of 200 feet from the ground. Will it require a permit to do so under the policy?
    Solution
    The correct answer is (a) - yes, the new drone cannot be flown at that height without a permit. Since the exception allows operation of Nano drones below the height of 50 feet, operating one at the height of 200 feet is not covered by the exception. Hence, Drone Boyz Co will need a permit for the same. Option (b) contradicts the height requirement for Nano Drones, and so, cannot be the correct answer. Since Drone Boyz Co proposes to operate the drone at a height greater than that permitted by the exception, option (c) cannot be the correct answer either. Based on the explanation for why option (a) is the correct answer, option (d) cannot be the correct answer.
  • Question 6
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    The law on prevention of cruelty to animals makes it an offence if a person does any of the following:
    • Beats, kicks, overrides, or tortures an animal or, being the owner, knowingly permits, any animal to be so treated (Type 1 Offence);
    • Fails to provide any animal with sufficient food, drink, or shelter being the owner of such animal (Type 2 Offence);
    • Without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely to suffer pain, starvation, or thirst (Type 3 Offence);
    • Solely with a view to providing entertainment incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal (Type 4 Offence)
    Exception for Experiments - The law, however, makes an exception to the above offences by stating that it is not unlawful to perform experiments (including experiments involving operations) on animals for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or plants.
    Ameena leaves her pup with her friend Nisha and requests Nisha to take good care of the pup until she returns from a 10-day business trip that she cannot avoid. Ameena mentions that she would pay Nisha for the food and any other expense that Nisha incurs in taking care of the pet. Ameena also asks Nisha to promise that she would call her if there was any problem with the pup, and Nisha agrees. Nisha takes the pup to the beach on a walk without letting Ameena know and feeds him a large family-pack of ice-cream. This causes the pup to have a gastrointestinal upset and he starts to growl - attracting the attention of several aggressive stray dogs in the vicinity eager to attack the pup. To punish the pup for his misbehaviour despite feeding him her favourite ice-cream, Nisha abandons the pup at the beach and takes a rickshaw back to her house. Soon after, the bigger stray dogs surround and attack the pup. A passer-by who sees this, urges and exhorts the pup to stand up for himself and fight the bigger dogs. The children playing cricket on the beach find this entertaining and line up to watch the fight. Meanwhile, Aaron, who is meditating at the beach, gets disturbed by the commotion created by the dogs and decides to stuff large stones in the mouths of the dogs to prevent them from barking. Many of the dogs, unable to get the stones out, die of starvation.

    ...view full instructions

    Nisha has committed:
    Solution
    The correct answer is (c) - a Type 3 Offence. There is no information in the passage implying that Nisha beat, kicked, overrode, or tortured the pup. 
    Since Nisha is not the owner, she cannot be guilty of having permitted such treatment of the animal. Therefore, (a) is not the correct answer. 
    Again, since Nisha is not the owner of the animal, she is not guilty of a Type 2 Offence. However, Nisha abandoned the pup in order to punish his misbehaviour despite feeding him ice-cream - which is not a reasonable ground to abandon him on the beach where bigger stray dogs were waiting to attack the pup. She is thereby, guilty of abandoning the pup in circumstances in which he was likely to suffer pain.
  • Question 7
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    The law on prevention of cruelty to animals makes it an offence if a person does any of the following:
    • Beats, kicks, overrides, or tortures an animal or, being the owner, knowingly permits, any animal to be so treated (Type 1 Offence);
    • Fails to provide any animal with sufficient food, drink, or shelter being the owner of such animal (Type 2 Offence);
    • Without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely to suffer pain, starvation, or thirst (Type 3 Offence);
    • Solely with a view to providing entertainment incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal (Type 4 Offence)
    Exception for Experiments - The law, however, makes an exception to the above offences by stating that it is not unlawful to perform experiments (including experiments involving operations) on animals for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or plants.
    Ameena leaves her pup with her friend Nisha and requests Nisha to take good care of the pup until she returns from a 10-day business trip that she cannot avoid. Ameena mentions that she would pay Nisha for the food and any other expense that Nisha incurs in taking care of the pet. Ameena also asks Nisha to promise that she would call her if there was any problem with the pup, and Nisha agrees. Nisha takes the pup to the beach on a walk without letting Ameena know and feeds him a large family-pack of ice-cream. This causes the pup to have a gastrointestinal upset and he starts to growl - attracting the attention of several aggressive stray dogs in the vicinity eager to attack the pup. To punish the pup for his misbehaviour despite feeding him her favourite ice-cream, Nisha abandons the pup at the beach and takes a rickshaw back to her house. Soon after, the bigger stray dogs surround and attack the pup. A passer-by who sees this, urges and exhorts the pup to stand up for himself and fight the bigger dogs. The children playing cricket on the beach find this entertaining and line up to watch the fight. Meanwhile, Aaron, who is meditating at the beach, gets disturbed by the commotion created by the dogs and decides to stuff large stones in the mouths of the dogs to prevent them from barking. Many of the dogs, unable to get the stones out, die of starvation.

    ...view full instructions

     Is the passer-by guilty of committing a Type 4 Offence?
    Solution
    The correct answer is (a) - no, the passer-by did not exhort the pup to fight for the sake of entertainment. A Type 4 Offence requires that one incite any animal to fight or bait any other animal solely with a view to providing entertainment. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that the passer-by who exhorted the pup to fight back did so for providing entertainment. That a bunch of children found it entertaining is only incidental and cannot be attributed as the purpose of the passer-by’s actions. 
    If a person incites an animal to fight solely to provide entertainment, it would be considered an offence regardless of whether it fetches them money; so option (b) is not the correct answer. 
    Since there is no mention of the passer-by inciting the pup for his own entertainment, option (c) is irrelevant. Since option (a) is the correct answer, option (d) cannot the answer.
  • Question 8
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Due to the rise in popularity of drones, the Government announces a policy for regulating the use of drones. A spokesperson for the Government says that the operation of drones for commercial purposes will require a permit under law, except for those in the Nano category flown below a height of 50 feet and those in the Micro category flown below a height of 200 feet. (Nano: weight of less than or equal to 250 grams. Micro: weight between 250 grams and 2 kg.). He adds, however, that there will be certain No Drone Zones such as areas near airports, international borders, strategic locations, and military installations where operating drones will not be allowed. He also mentions that the remote pilot of a drone shall ensure that there is no trespass into private property and the privacy of a third party is not compromised in any manner and that trespass would include drones entering the private property of a person without being authorised to do so.
    Drone Boyz Co is a company that specialises in photography including photography with the use of Nano drones. Drone Boyz Co does not have any permit to operate drones. Mehek entered into an agreement with Drone Boyz Co to have her birthday party photographed. At the time of entering into the contract, the venue of Meheks birthday party was supposed to be her farmhouse on the outskirts of the city. However, due to a large number of her friends finding it inconvenient to travel till there, Mehek shifted the venue of the birthday party to her uncles bungalow adjoining the city airport a few hours before the scheduled time of the party. Drone Boyz Co assigned one of its employees, Rajat, to do the photography using drones. Rajat used a drone weighing 179 grams to do the photography of the event. However, the app on his phone with which the drone is controlled crashed and the drone ended up next to Robin, who lived in the neighbourhood. Robin saw the camera on a drone flash outside his bedroom and seeing that an unauthorised drone had entered into his property, Robin decided to disable and crush the drone and threw it into the air about 55 feet high and 35 feet away.

    ...view full instructions

    Has Mehek violated the law? Choose the option with the correct answer and explanation.
    Solution
    The correct answer is (d) - no, she did not require that the photography of her event be done using drones. There is nothing in the facts to suggest that Mehek requested the photography of her birthday party to be done with the use of drones, and so, neither (a) nor (b) can be the correct answer. Moreover, Rajat is an employee of Drone Boyz Co and not Mehek, therefore option (c) cannot be the correct answer.
  • Question 9
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Due to the rise in popularity of drones, the Government announces a policy for regulating the use of drones. A spokesperson for the Government says that the operation of drones for commercial purposes will require a permit under law, except for those in the Nano category flown below a height of 50 feet and those in the Micro category flown below a height of 200 feet. (Nano: weight of less than or equal to 250 grams. Micro: weight between 250 grams and 2 kg.). He adds, however, that there will be certain No Drone Zones such as areas near airports, international borders, strategic locations, and military installations where operating drones will not be allowed. He also mentions that the remote pilot of a drone shall ensure that there is no trespass into private property and the privacy of a third party is not compromised in any manner and that trespass would include drones entering the private property of a person without being authorised to do so.
    Drone Boyz Co is a company that specialises in photography including photography with the use of Nano drones. Drone Boyz Co does not have any permit to operate drones. Mehek entered into an agreement with Drone Boyz Co to have her birthday party photographed. At the time of entering into the contract, the venue of Meheks birthday party was supposed to be her farmhouse on the outskirts of the city. However, due to a large number of her friends finding it inconvenient to travel till there, Mehek shifted the venue of the birthday party to her uncles bungalow adjoining the city airport a few hours before the scheduled time of the party. Drone Boyz Co assigned one of its employees, Rajat, to do the photography using drones. Rajat used a drone weighing 179 grams to do the photography of the event. However, the app on his phone with which the drone is controlled crashed and the drone ended up next to Robin, who lived in the neighbourhood. Robin saw the camera on a drone flash outside his bedroom and seeing that an unauthorised drone had entered into his property, Robin decided to disable and crush the drone and threw it into the air about 55 feet high and 35 feet away.

    ...view full instructions

    Did Robin breach the requirement of a permit?
    Solution
    The correct answer is (a) - no, he did not operate a drone for commercial purposes. As is evident from the facts, Robin did not fly nor operate the drone. He also disabled and crushed the drone before throwing it away. The requirement of the permit is applicable to the operation of the drone for commercial purposes and therefore, did not apply to Robin, who merely threw a drone, therefore, neither option (b) nor option (d) can be the right answer. Option (c) is irrelevant to the question and so, cannot be the right answer.
  • Question 10
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Seema is an international wrestler and a member of the Mahabali Akhada in Thane, Maharashtra. The Mahabali Akhada has strict rules against doping and also on possession of Prohibited Substances. It had circulated to each of its members, a list of Prohibited Substances, including the substance Dexamethasone. On Tuesday, Seema caught a severe cold and her doctor prescribed her a cough syrup, Cofdex. Acting on her doctors advice, Seema requested her driver to get Cofdex from the local pharmacy. Naina, who happens to be a rival of Seema and also a member of the Mahabali Akhada, saw Seemas driver purchasing Cofdex from the pharmacy. Naina knew that Cofdex contains Dexamethasone and, on the same day, made an anonymous complaint to the Mahabali Akhada that Seema is in constructive possession of a Prohibited Substance. The next day, Seema took one dose of Cofdex and then checked the ingredients of the medicine. She found out that it contains Dexamethasone. She immediately reported to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada that she came in possession of the cough syrup and intends to surrender it since it contains Dexamethasone. On Thursday, the Anti-Doping Wing of the Mahabali Akhada requested Seema for her urine samples, which tested positive for the presence of Dexamethasone. 
    The Mahabali Akahadas Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances states the following: The actual, physical or constructive possession of a Prohibited Substance amounts to a violation of this Anti-Doping Code; provided, however, constructive possession shall only be found if the person knew about the presence of the Prohibited Substance and exercised control to acquire possession of it. Provided, however, there shall be no violation of this Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances, if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, the person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the person never intended to have possession of the Prohibited Substance and has renounced its possession by explicitly declaring it to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, the purchase (including by any electronic or other means) of a Prohibited Substance constitutes possession by the Person who makes the purchase.

    ...view full instructions

    Did Seema violate the Mahabali Akhadas Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances? Choose the option with the correct answer as well as the most appropriate explanation for it.
    Solution
    The correct answer is (a) - no; prior to being notified of an anti-doping rule violation, Seema took action to demonstrate that she never intended to have possession of the Prohibited Substance and renounced its possession. The Anti-Doping Code clearly states that there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based solely on possession if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, the person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the person never intended to have possession and has renounced possession by explicitly declaring it to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada. As soon as she learnt that Cofdex contains Dexamethasone, Seema took steps to demonstrate that she never intended to have possession by notifying the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada and renouncing possession. Therefore, she did not violate the Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances.
Self Studies
User
Question Analysis
  • Correct -

  • Wrong -

  • Skipped -

My Perfomance
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition
Self Studies Get latest Exam Updates
& Study Material Alerts!
No, Thanks
Self Studies
Click on Allow to receive notifications
Allow Notification
Self Studies
Self Studies Self Studies
To enable notifications follow this 2 steps:
  • First Click on Secure Icon Self Studies
  • Second click on the toggle icon
Allow Notification
Get latest Exam Updates & FREE Study Material Alerts!
Self Studies ×
Open Now