•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

thread for discussing questions that came in Bar Exam 2011

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous's Avatar Topic Author
8 years 1 month ago #1 by Anonymous
Here is an interesting question that came in the bar exam. Whats the solution?

A challenges a decision of a Central Excise Commissioner in a petition under Article 226 of*te Constitution before a high court. Assume that the relevant statute provides for an appeal to the high court from the decisions of a Central Excise
Commissioner. The high court refuses to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Can the high court refuse to exercise.iurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Principle: The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy, and as such, a high court has the discretion to refuse the grant of writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party.can have an adequate remedy elsewhere.

Options:
A. The high court can refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 since A can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

B. The high court cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, since the statute itself provides that an appeal from a decision of the Central Excise Commissioner must lie before the high court itself.

C. The remedy provided under the statute is an appeal before the high court; as such, there is no remedy available to d 'elsewhere'. Therefore, the high court cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in
this case.

D. A has the remedy of an appeal under the statute; an appeal and the exercise of writ jurisdiction are different, and as such, the high court can refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case.

E. It has been established that the fundamental rights, which include the right to approach a court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction,frdy not be suspended even when a proclamation of Emergency is in effect; therefore, the high court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case.
  • raj singh
  • raj singh's Avatar Topic Author
8 years 1 month ago #2 by raj singh
another question:

21. A state govemment passes a law providing that anyperson suffering from A.I.D.S. must compulsorily be confined in their homes, and may not move about anywhere in the state. The law also provides that medical treatment must be provided to them in their homes, and that they may not travel to hospitals for the same. B, who suffers from A.I.D.S., challenges this law on the ground that it violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India to move freely throughout the territory of Lrdia. Will B's challenge succeed?

Principle: Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. Article 19(2)(5) of the Constitution provides that the State may impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution in the interests of the general public.

Options:
-
A. The law violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution; completely restricting the movement of a person suffering from A.I.D.S., without an exception to travel to a hospital to receive medical aid, is an unreasonable restriction. The law will be struck down.
B. The law violates the fundamental right under Article l9(l)(d) of the Constitution; a person suffering from A.I.D.S. would need to travel freely for their treatment to other states, clinics, and to other places, and not just hospitals. The law will be struck down.
C. The law cannot be said to violate the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, since the free movement of a person suffering from A.I.D.S. constitutes a danger to public health. The law is valid"
D. The law cannot be said to violate the fundamental right under Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution, since it does permit a person suffering from A.I.D.S. to receive treatment at home. As such, it is a reasonable restriction, and is valid.
E. The validity of the law depends upon the availability of medical treatment for persons suffering from A.I.D.S. If the state provides medical practitioners and equipment to have such persons treated at home, the law would only be a reasonable restriction on the right under Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution, and would, therefore, be valid.
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous's Avatar Topic Author
8 years 1 month ago #3 by Anonymous
a or b? i am confused.
  • raj singh
  • raj singh's Avatar Topic Author
8 years 1 month ago #4 by raj singh
this was really easy :

22. A bid at an auction is usually an:

A. Agreement.
B. Offer.
C. Acceptance.
D. Invitation to treat.
E. Invitation to make an offer

look at option d, its so funny :)
  • more easy questions
  • more easy questions's Avatar Topic Author
8 years 1 month ago #5 by more easy questions
Replied by more easy questions on topic thread for discussing questions that came in Bar Exam 2011
Which of the following is voidable at the option of one party under the Indian
Contracts Act,l972?
Options:
A. Agreements in restraint of marriage.
B. Agreements in restraint of trade.
C. Agreements where consent is not freely given.
D. Agreements without consideration.
E. Agreements of which the consideration or object is unlawful.

24. Which of the following is not a negotiable instrument?
Options:
A. A cheque payable to bearer.
B. A promissory note.
C. A bill of exchange.
D. A cheque payable to order.
E: A demand draft.

25. Both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a law in force outside India;
the point of foreign law involved is essential to the agreement. The agreement is:

A. Void because a mistake as to a law renders a contract void.
B. Valid because a mistake as to a law does not make an agreement void or
voidable.
C. Void because a mistake as to a law in force outside India is treated as a
mistake of fact.
D. Voidable at the option of either partybecause there is no meeting of minds
between the parties.
E. Valid because lack of consensus ad idem between the parties does not make a
contract void
More
8 years 1 month ago - 8 years 1 month ago #6 by virendra
24. Which of the following is not a negotiable instrument?
answer-E: A demand draft.

i think so
More
8 years 1 month ago - 8 years 1 month ago #7 by virendra
21. A state govemment passes a law providing that anyperson suffering from A.I.D.S. must compulsorily be confined in their homes, and may not move about anywhere in the state. The law also provides that medical treatment must be provided to them in their homes, and that they may not travel to hospitals for the same. B, who suffers from A.I.D.S., challenges this law on the ground that it violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India to move freely throughout the territory of Lrdia. Will B's challenge succeed?
answer-E. The validity of the law depends upon the availability of medical treatment for persons suffering from A.I.D.S. If the state provides medical practitioners and equipment to have such persons treated at home, the law would only be a reasonable restriction on the right under Article 19(1Xd) of the Constitution, and would, therefore, be valid.

i think so

Latest comments