#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

Sita and Gita purchased same necklaces from a jeweler shop. Sita committed theft of Gita's Necklace from her almirah and kept it in her almirah. Unaware of the missing of her necklace, one day, Gita opened the almirah of Sita with the intention of committing theft of her necklace and take away her own necklace assuming the same to be of Sita.

Which of the following statement is correct?

(1) Gita went there with intention to commit theft of Sita's necklace and took the same assuming it to be of Sita, hence, she has committed the offence of theft.

(2). She has committed no offence.

(3) Gita dishonestly removes the movable property, from the possession of Sita without her consent, hence, Gita has committed the offence of theft.

(4) However, Gita has committed the offence of theft but neither she nor Sita will be prosecuted for the offence of theft because their acts shall be treated as equalizer of each other's act.

Question 42 series B Answer is 2

Not objectionable: Explanation
Actus reus: https://t.me/LegalQuizzes/555696

See definitions of dishonestly wrong ful gain and wrongful loss.

🔔 Answer key RJS prelims 2025

Change your vote if there is any changes by retracting vote and voting again on correct marks range.
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6441


The answer to above question is no offence as per answer key, I know that this will be a little bit difficult so though of sharing for discussion. {answer option B is correct}
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6443

"Coaching institutes ki quality inhi question ke answers pe pata chal jaati hai"

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

Which of the following is best suited to fill in the blank? Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by

(1) Coercion or Undue Influence

(2) Fraud or Misrepresentation

(3) Misappropriation or Cheating

(4) All the above are correct

Section 14 ICA?

This looks contentious 🤔

Primarily answer lies in whether grounds in section 14 are exhaustive and even if exhaustive option 3 (cheating) is covered in 1 and 2 therefore 4 is correct.

Again then also they excluded option 1 and 2 and answer mentioned is 3.

Superlative Injunction:Most Secretive Form Of Legal Protection
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/superlative-injunction-secretive-form-legal-protection-298982

UTV Software Communication Ltd.
v.
1337X 2019

Delhi High Court held that “Though the

dynamic injunction

was issued by the Singapore High Court under the provisions of Section 193 DDA of the Singapore Copyright Act, and no similar procedure exists in India, yet in order to meet the ends of justice and to address the menace of piracy, this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 CPC permits the plaintiffs to implead the mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites under Order I Rule 10 CPC as these websites merely provide access to the same websites which are the subject of the main injunction.”


Star India Pvt Ltd
v.
IPTV Smarter Pro  
2025
“

a superlative injunction"

In the new age of technology, today it has become increasingly easy and convenient for infringers to create alpha-numeric/ mirror/ redirect variants of infringing websites, and by the time impleadment and extension of relief(s) can take place, certain time-sensitive infringing activities like live streaming of sporting events have already commenced illegally and by the time the effected party like the plaintiff approaches this Court, it is too late. Even otherwise, the post blocking scenario is also a race against time since new alpha-numeric/ mirror/ redirect variants of infringing websites spawn in the spur of the moment in these rapid times. Under such circumstances, this Court has repeatedly held that real-time relief is warranted in order to not let the rights of plaintiff(s) like the plaintiff herein be rendered otiose in the virtual world 

This is, thus, a superlative
injunction, which, for ease of reference can easily be referred to as an extended version of the available dynamic+ injunction, as the said superlative injunction also opens up an additional route for the plaintiff(s) to avail the grant of real-time relief(s) against the infringing activities of ‘rogue’ defendant(s) irrespective of the mode(s) thereof.

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

A' borrowed Rs. 50000 from 'B'. Despite repeated reminders, he was not repaying the same. 'A' instigate 'C', his servant, to murder 'B', when he comes to demand his money. Next day, 'B' came to make a demand of money. Hot talks were exchanged between 'A' and 'B'. However, 'A' didn't do anything, but under such instigation, 'C' gave an axe blow on the head of 'B', resultantly, 'B' died at the spot. What offences, 'A' and 'C' has committed?

(1) C is guilty of murder of B and A is guilty of abating such murder.

(2) A & C both are guilty of murder of B.

(3) C is guilty of murder of B and A has not committed any offence.

(4) A is guilty of abating murder of B and C has not committed any offence.

Erasing Digital Past: Courts Are Listening
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/erasing-digital-past-courts-are-listening-299058

सहमति की उम्र 18 वर्ष ही रहनी चाहिए; किशोर संबंधों के मामलों में न्यायिक विवेक का प्रयोग किया जा सकता है: केंद्र ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट को बताया
https://hindi.livelaw.in/category/news-updates/age-of-consent-judicial-discretion-adolescent-relationship-cases-centre-supreme-court-298895

#Hindi@CurrentLegalGK

Should A Woman Be Granted Bail Solely Based On Her Gender?
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/should-a-woman-be-granted-bail-solely-based-on-her-gender-299084

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK Appeal section 480 and section 437 crpc bail in non bailable offences proviso.

Changing Judicial Climate Around Section 498A IPC And Sections 3 & 4 Of Dowry Prohibition Act
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/changing-judicial-climate-around-section-498a-ipc-sections-3-4-dowry-prohibition-act-299085

Legislation by INCORPORATION
v.
Legislation by REFERENCE.

In incorporation specific provision is incorporated in one statute of any earlier statute and the effect is that any amendment in earlier statute would not affect the incorporated provision(s)

In reference general reference to act is made and any amendment in earlier statute has the effect in borrowing statute.

For distinction see landmark judgments tests such as language used, such as “shall be deemed part of” (incorp.) or merely “shall apply” (reference). Effect of amendment such as reading amendment in borrowing statute would make the statute unworkable then it is impossible to have effect of amendment in borrowing statute therefore it is 'incorporation' or if the borrowing act is a complete act it just borrows some provision for limited purpose it is incorporation.

Exceptions: Supplement or pari materia enactments, (ipc, corruption act), amendment necessary.

#Discernible_Topics@CurrentLegalGK

#IOS@CurrentLegalGK

Venue Is Construed As Seat In Absence Of Contrary Indicia, If Arbitration Agreement Only Mentions 'Venue': Allahabad HC
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-judgment-clarifies-venue-vs-seat-arbitration-agreement-299174

Indus mobile distribution v. Datawind innovations, 2017

Place seat venue and exclusive jurisdiction of courts where seat is situated.

Discussed landmark judgments.

#Arbitration@CurrentLegalGK


The above recent case
“If the arbitration agreement mentions only one place and even if it is termed as the 'venue', then unless there is a contrary indicia the 'venue' is construed as the 'seat',”

@CurrentLegalGK

Documentary Evidence in civil cases.

@CurrentLegalGK