List of top Questions asked in All India Law Entrance Test - LLM

The questions are to be answered on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Choose the most appropriate answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the questions.
It is undeniable that the Corona virus disease has taken the world by surprise. Governments radically forced guidelines that, in a matter of days, shut down businesses indefinitely and people found themselves compelled to abide by new norms. While the hygiene measures remained the same as for previous pandemics, the social distancing norms were particularly disruptive and made the experience unique. To society, social distancing presents the dangers of increasing social rejection, growing impersonality and individualism, and the loss of a sense of community. It negatively affects learning and growth, and it prevents people from effectively socialising, which is a fundamental human need. First and foremost, the measures carried a strong psychological message, which is the fear of others, along with the idea that others are potential carriers of deadly germs and life-threatening diseases. The alarming rate of contamination and death from the virus contributed to establishing more panic and even paranoia among many. What is particularly concerning is the fact that this psychological effect could potentially remain in our communities, even long after the pandemic. Whether this is at work, in restaurants, or in public spaces, our society has long been characterised by physical interactions between people. We are used to working in groups, going places, meeting new people, and making conversations with them on a daily basis. As we navigate through life, much of what fulfills us are the bonds we create with other people, and more often than not, those bonds materialise through physical interactions. Indeed, feeling insufficiently connected to others is associated with profound and lasting negative consequences on physical and mental health, even leading to increased mortality. Physical interactions are an essential part of human social experience, and they are particularly important for the social development of young people. Indeed, young people flourish socially through connections and fulfilling relationships, which are also an integral part of their learning. By closing schools, the pandemic has prevented many children and adolescents from socialising with others. This has affected their ability to make quality connections, which impacts their personal growth. Long-term isolation leaves these basic human needs unsatisfied and ultimately affects mental health.
Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. A deceit occurs when a misrepresentation is made with the express intention of defrauding a party, subsequently causing loss to that party.
2. “Misrepresentation” means and includes— the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
FACTUAL SITUATION : XY Company in its prospectus stated that the company was permitted to make engines that were powered by electricity, rather than by fuel. In reality, the company did not possess such a right as this had to be approved by the Government Board. Gaining the approval for such a claim from the Board was considered a formality in such circumstances and the claim was put forward in the prospectus with this information in mind. However, the claim of the company for this right was later refused by the Board. The individuals who had purchased a stake in the business, upon reliance on the statement, brought a claim for deceit against the defendant’s business. Decide.
Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
4. In cases of nuisance, the court may grant an injunction restricting the nuisance from occurring in the future when the loss could not adequately compensated.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Tina purchased a house in an estate which was adjacent to a functioning, in use, cricket field. The members of Super Eleven Cricket Club used to play Cricket in that field for over 70 years. After Tina moved into the property, cricket balls began to fly over the field’s protective barrier and into the Tina’s property. Tina complained, which caused Super Eleven Cricket Club to erect a chain link fence. This improved matters as less balls were now flying onto the Tina’s property but it did not fully solve the issue as some still got through. The club offered Tina to pay for any damage done or injuries received as a result of the balls landing onto her land, including fixing any broken windows and similar. Tina, however, refused all of the club’s offers and filed a case against the members of the Club alleging nuisance and negligence and requested court to grant an injunction to prevent the club from playing cricket on their ground. Tina argued that even though the club offered to make good any damage and that there had been no injuries, she was not able to use her garden when matches were being played for fear of being struck by a cricket ball. Decide.
Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. Negligence is the absence of care on the part of one party which results in some damage to the other Party.
2. Generally, a person is under no duty to control another to prevent his doing damage to a third Party.
3. The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct.
4. Statutory authority implies that an act is done by a person to fulfil his duty imposed by the State. Statutory authority is a valid defense under the law of torts.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Ten borstal trainees were working on an island in a harbor in the custody and under the control of three officers. During the night, seven of them escaped. It was claimed that at the time of the escape the officers had retired to bed. The seven got on board a yacht, moored off the island and set it in motion. They collided with another yacht, the property of X and damaged it. X sued the Home office for the damage. Decide whether on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim the Home Office, its servants or agents owed any duty of care to X capable of giving rise to a liability in damages with respect to the detention of persons undergoing sentences of borstal training or with respect to the manner in which such persons were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised whilst undergoing such sentences.
DECISION :
Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred, ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendant.
4. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.
5. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.
FACTUAL SITUATION : KLM, a firm that manufactures electrical equipments, was the target of a takeover by ABS Industries. KLM was not doing well. In March 2019, KLM had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 2019, KLM’s directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed that the position was bad. The share price fell again. At this point, ABS had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 2019, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dinesh, were issued to the shareholders, which now included ABS. ABS reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code’s rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, ABS found that KLM’s accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dinesh for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate. Which of the following answers is incorrect ?
Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE : Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondent superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees/agents in the course of employment/agency. A servant/agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principle in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
FACTUAL SITUATION : A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as “our car.” B used it to go to work, and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realized that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend, C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last had been visited C offered the three friends (X, Y and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeded, at his own suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B’s home to have a meal, On the way, due to C’s negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X, Y and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the husband’s estate. Decide whether A is liable.
DECISION :
Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. Battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another’s person without that person’s consent.
2. When lawfully exercising power of arrest or some other statutory power a police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X, was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute, in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behavior before charging a woman with being a prostitute. X refused to speak to the policewoman and walked away, whereupon the policewoman took hold of X’s arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officer’s arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behavior should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery.
DECISION :