top of page

Legal reasoning - Questions and answers CSEET Part 2

1. Legal Principle : Causing damage, however substantial to another person is not actionable in law unless there is also a violation of a legal right of the plaintiff.

Factual Situation : Mr. Nandan opened a petrol pump next to earlier existing petrol pump ofMr. Chandan as a result of which Mr. Chandan suffered huge losses. Mr. Chandan wants to initiate action against Mr. Nandan for the losses suffered. He will


(a) Succeed because he has suffered losses because of Mr. Nandan.

(b) Fail because no legal right of Mr. Chandan was infringed.

(c) Succeed because Mr. Nandan was wrong in opening a petrol pump next to already existing one .

(d) Succeed because Mr. Chandan is entitled to earn reasonable profit on his investment.

Answer B

Explanation : Gloucester Grammar School case – No legal right is infringed. It is a constitutional right to practice or engage any trade or profession.

2. Legal Principle : Even where there is infringement of a legal right which does not result in harm. Plaintiff can still sue in tort.

Factual Situation : Cattle owned by Mr. Vinay entered the fields of Mr. Vipin and roamed about freely for considerable time without causing any kind of loss to Mr. Vinay Mr. Vinay did not like Mr. Vipin and thought of imitating legal action against him using this opportunity Mr. Vinay will:


(a) Fail because he did not suffer any monetary loss.

(b) Fail because he did not suffer any infringement of his legal right.

(c) Succeed because his legal right was infringed.

(d) Fail because he initiated the legal action because of his dislike for the defendant.

Answer : C

Explanation: to show that a tort of immovable property has been caused, one needs to fulfil the following conditions:-

  1. There is a right to hold or possess

  2. There is either disturbance or usurpation(seize) of such right

  3. Such disturbance or usurpation may be caused by actual physical damage to property or by interference with or impairing of the enjoyment of it

3. Legal Principle : Normally the tortfeasor is liable for his tort but in some cases a person may be held liable for the tort committed by another.

Factual situation : Mr. Rahul’s car was being driven by his driver when it hit a pedestrian as a result of which the pedestrian suffered heavy injuries. He brought a legal action against Mr. Rahul because the car belonged to him and the driver was employed by him. The legal action of the pedestrian against Mr. Rahul will:


(a) Fail because Mr. Rahul had nothing to do with the accident.

(b) Succeed because responsibility in such cases is imputed by law on grounds of social policy or expediency

(c) Succeed because a master is always liable for the acts of his or her servant.

(d) Fail because it was the duty of the driver to be careful while driving.

Answer D

Explanation – It is the duty of the driver to be cautious while driving. As long as the vehicle and driver have valid documents the owner have no liability, but when the documents are not in order, the owner will be liable.

4. Legal Principle : The defendant is liable if he makes a non-natural use of land.

Factual Situation : Mr. Kundan had stored chemicals on his land which escaped and caused damaged to the adjacent properties one of which belonged to Mr. Ankit. Mr. Ankit is


(a) Fail because Mr. Kundan had stored chemicals on his own property

(b) Succeed because storing chemicals is a non-natural use of land.

(c) Fail because storing chemicals is a natural use of land.

(d) Fail because Mr. Ankit should have taken adequate precautions against the chemicals.

Answer: B

Explanation: Rylands Vs Fletcher . If you make any non natural use of land and it escapes and damages other property, then you are liable.

5. Legal Principle : Absolute or strict liability are exceptions to the requirement of mensrea.

Factual Situation : B. a mill owner employed independent contractors, who were apparently competent to construct a reservoir on his land to provide water for his mill. There were old disused mining shafts under the site of the reservoir which the contractors failed to observe because they were filled with earth. The contractors therefore. did not blow them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it bursts through the shafts and Hooded the plaintiffs coal mines on the adjoining land. It was found as a fact that B did not know of the shafts and had not been negligent.


(a) Even though the independent contractors had been negligible, B will be held liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiff

(b) B will be held liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiff only if B was negligent and not otherwise .

(c) Independent contractors would be liable to the plaintiff as there is privily of contract between them.

(d) Neither B nor the independent contractors would be held liable as there was no guilty mind at work

Answer A

Explanation : Rylands Vs Fletcher.

6. Legal Principle : Consent of the Plaintiff is an exception to the rule of Strict liability

Factual Situation : Mr. Jagdish was subjected to a risk owing to a defect in the machinery at the factory at which he was employed. He complained of this to the person who had the general management of the business, but was told nevertheless to go on with his work.  He did so and sustained the injury for which he brought his action against the factory


(a) The suit will fail because it must be assumed Mr. Jagdish had assented to take upon himself the risk.

(b) The suit will succeed because Mr. Jagdish had highlighted the risk to the Factory management and his refuse to work might have led to his termination.

(c) The suit will fail because Mr. Jagdish should have stopped working at the factory if the management had refused to address his concerns regarding safety

(d) The suit will succeed because in a suit between an employer and an employee, the employee is favoured because he she is generally poor.

Answer : B

Explanation : Exposing employees to risk is a crime and here the employee complained and asked to continue.

7. Legal Principle : For the tort committed by partner in the ordinary course of the business of the Firm. all the other partners are liable to the same extent as the guilty partner.

Factual Situation : A. B and C ran a Chartered Accountancy firm in partnership. In order to solicit work from a big bank A, one of the three partners bribed the Banks senior manager and induced him to hand over the audit work to their Firm.


(a) All the partners are liable for the tort committed by only one of them.

(b) Only the partner who paid the bribe is liable.

(c) Whether or not all partners are liable would depend on the fact whether B and C had knowledge of bribe or not.

(d) The liability of B and C would be established only if they had given there written consent to A to bribe the bank official.

Answer :A

Explanation : All partners are liable for the acts committed by one partner in the course of business of profession.

8. Legal Principle : The State can claim immunity from the tortuous liability only in the cases of sovereign function. otherwise not.

Factual Position : Chandra and his father Gopal were lodged in a jail, wherein one day bombs were hurled at them by their rivals. causing the death of Gopal and injuries Chandra. The victims were having previous knowledge of the impending attack, which they conveyed to the authorities, but no additional security was provided to them. On the contrary there was gross negligence since there was a great relaxation in the number of police men who were to guard the jail on that fateful day. Thus, on the grounds of negligence a suit was filed Chandra against the Government. The suit will


(a) Succeed because there was gross negligence on part of the State.

(b) Fail because maintain jail facilities is part of the sovereign function of the State.

(c) Succeed because securing law and order is not a sovereign function of the State.

(d) Fail because the State cannot be held responsible in any way if people lose life because of their personal rivalries even in facilities maintained and operated by the State.

Answer : B

Explanation : Challa Ramkonda Reddy And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh By ... on 17 February, 1989 – It is clearly mentioned in this case that the protection of jail is a soverign function of the government, even on the circumstances of negligence, they can not held liable.

9. Legal Principle : Under Article 12. unless the content otherwise requires. the State includes-

(a) the Government and Parliament of lndia:

(b) the Government and Legislature of each of the States: and

(c) all local or other authorities: (i) within the territory of India: or (ii) under the control ofthe Government of lndia.

Factual Situation : Mr. Arvin is employed with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). He faces discrimination at work at the hands of the Management and thinks that his right to equality is violated. He contemplates moving a writ petition against ONGC but his colleague suggests that Mr. Arvind will not succeed because ONGC is not State.


(a) ONCG is State as per Article 12 of the Constitution.

(b) ONGC is not State as per Article 12 of the Constitution.

(c) Mr. Arvind will not succeed because a writ cannot be brought against a Company

(d) ONGC is not State because its shares are listed in the stock market.

Answer A

Explanation: Sukhdev v/s Bhagatram , LIC , ONGC AND IFCI were held to be State as performing very close to governmental or sovereign functions. The Corporations are State when they enjoy

( i ) Power to make regulations;

( ii ) Regulations have force of law.

( e ) Clearance of five tests

In R.D.Shetty v/s International Airport Authority, the Court laid down five tests to be an other authority-

( i ) Entire share capital is owned or managed by State.

( ii ) Enjoys monopoly status.

( iii ) Department of Government is transferred to Corporation.

( iv ) Functional character governmental in essence.

( v ) Deep and pervasive State control

10. Legal Principle : No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence.

Factual Situation : Ms. Chandni had an altercation with her classmate in her college and in the heat of the moment she hurled a racist abuse at her classmate and her classmate was deeply offended by it. Ms. Chandni had later apologized for it. In the next few months, a law was passed which made racist abuse punishable. Aware of the fact that the law of limitation does not apply to criminal act. she moved an application to the court to initiate criminal action against Ms. Chandni for the racist abuse. The classmates application will:


(a) Fail because racist abuse was not punishable when it was hurled.

(b) Succeed because the law made racist abuse punishable with imprisonment and it is undeniable that Ms. Chandni has hurled that abuse.

(c) Succeed because law of limitation does not apply to criminal acts.

(d) Fail because it was not a serious offence and Ms. Chandni had already apologized for it.

Answer A

Explanation – Where there is no crime is committed, then there is no role of law of limitation.

315 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Business environment - graduate level analysis

The business environment refers to the external factors that influence a company's operations and decision-making. It's dynamic, complex, and often beyond the control of any single organization. Under

bottom of page