•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

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

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Jan 2012 All India Bar Exam: Unofficial model answers

BarHacker’s unofficial answers to the 8 January 2012 All India Bar Exam (AIBE). Answers given below are the most likely correct choices to the best of BarHacker’s knowledge but no responsibility can be taken for any possible errors. Please leave comments with your thoughts.

1. D

2. B

3. C

4. C

5. E. Since there is no clarity that C is not a party to the arbitration agreement, it is safer to choose E. The dispute relates to the implementation of the contract, which is within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, E is the correct answer.

6. C. If the principle is applied, you will find out that there is no mention of a signed settlement agreement having come into existence. Therefore, C is the correct answer.

7. A

8. E. The correct answer is that such mistakes can be corrected by the Court on application by any of the parties (which is different from a fresh suit) or by the Court on its own notice (Vol. 1, p. 36). Hence, E is the correct answer, since it is the nearest option.

9. E

10. C

11. B. The correct answers would have actually been A, C, D and E. The question seems to have a typographical error. It should have been - In which of the following circumstances will a judgment of a foreign court not operate as res judicata between the parties? B was clearly the odd one out, and we have opted for it on this basis. We are still to see how the BCI decides to mark this. It is possible that everyone who has attempted the question is given full marks.

12. E

13. A

14. B

15. D

16. D

17. A

18. A

19. C

20. E

21. D

22. E

23. A

24. B

25. E

26. C

27. A

28. D

29. D. This option is directly from the study material (Vol. 1 pg. 111). However, C could have also been correct, as the intention was to cause bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death, but the wording of D more closely corresponds to the study material. The remaining options, however, do not contain any indication of the 'knowledge' of the accused, which is an essential ingredient for a case of culpable homicide to satisfy the requirement of murder.

30. D

31. D

32. E

33. D

34. C

35. A

36. E

37. B. A lawyer is required to be present, but not in the interrogation room. A lawyer must remain within sight of the accused, but out of hearing distance (Vol 1, p. 126).

38. B

39. A

40. E

41. D

42. B

43. A

44. B

45. C

46. E

47. E. The minor is the transferee of the property, not the transferor. As per the principle, only the transferor is required to be competent to contract. Therefore, the second part of the principle is not applicable. Since the minor is under an obligation to pay, which is against the first part of the principle (no obligation may be imposed on a minor), E is the correct answer.

48. B

49. C

50. B. The Evidence Act does not use the word 'third party' evidence at all. Literally speaking, all evidence other than the evidence of the prosecution/plaintiff and the accused/defendant, is the evidence of a third party. The study material (Vol. I, p. 166) mentions that generally the evidence of certain third parties (except specified categories of persons, such as experts) has been made irrelevant. Since expert evidence has already been listed as an option, third party evidence will have the least likelihood of being admitted and is the correct answer.

51. D

52. D

53. C

54. B

55. A

56. A

57. E

58. B

59. B

60. D

61. D

62. A

63. A

64. C

65. B

66. C

67. B

68. C

69. D

70. B

71. D

72. B

73. E

74. E

75. D

76. A

77. B

78. B

79. C

80. E

81. D. While option B is close, it does not apply the principle at all, and only applies the facts. Option D contains inferences from the law (the reference to the principle of the right to livelihood) and fact (the reference to the HIV positive status of the individual X)

82. B. (The principle does not apply at all)

Lifting of corporate veil would be applicable where the liability of a company was sought to be extended back to its principal shareholder. In the present case, the loan is itself obtained by a director. The principle does not allow one to extend the liability of the individual to the company. Therefore, the question of applying the principle does not arise, as the loan is not obtained by the company.

83. B. Apply only the principle given. The principle only states which country's law applies on a ship bearing a flag and registered in the flag state, and does not mention anything relating to the power of a particular country to prosecute an offender.

84. D

85. D

86. A

87. A. (Requires application of common sense). Permitting nuclear testing in one's own territory would be contrary to the purpose of the main treaty, which is to ban nuclear testing.

88. E.

89. A.

90. D. Again, look at the statement that most closely represents the principle. It does not matter if some of the options only contain an inference as to the expenditure on the storage shed and not the land that has been leased. If an option mentions a correct application of the principle, that is the correct option. Only Option C mentions inferences with respect to both expenditures, that is, the expenditure incurred on the lease as well as the shed, but the inferences are incorrect.

91. B. While A received only Rs. 12 lakhs for the land that he purchased at Rs. 10 lakhs, it is safe to presume that a debt to receive the remaining 3 lakhs has accrued to A.

92. D.

93. B. (Application-based)

Based on the fact that (i) the dominant nature of the activity is clerical (principle is mentioned in the study material but there is no illustration), and (ii) presence on board of governors and voting rights does not grant supervisory powers to the accountant, and (iii) the accountant is primarily on the board as a representative of non-teaching by virtue of being an accountant (which is not a job related to teaching activity)

94. A.

95. D.

96. E. (No direct problem on this principle is mentioned in study material)

Based on the general principle of joint and several liability, as explained in the book. Since A and B are also severally liable to C, they are both liable to C to pay the balance amount, irrespective of the Court's order to apportion liability between A and B.

97. C. (Application based. The study material only mentions the bare provision of the legislation)

There is no indication of persistent defiance by the company. The order of discontinuation has been issued at the first instance itself. Therefore, the State Board was not within its powers.

98. D. (No clear answer in study material).

Explanation - The statute empowers the authority to a) regulate the activities of leather industries and b) levy taxes. It permits retrospective application of regulatory notifications, that is, component a) only, and not retrospective levy of taxes (component b)). Further, based on the principle that delegation of fiscal power is scrutinized more strictly (as mentioned in the module), D would be the correct answer.

99. B.

100. A.

Click to show 4 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.