Legal Reasoning

[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

Test Legal Reasoning

Test Code LA-04
Topic Legal Reasoning
No. of Questions 20
Maximum Marks 20
Competitive score 16 and above
Time allowed 13 minutes
Answers are provided in this file for self-evaluation.

1. Principle:
Whoever sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into
circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation,
makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper shall
be punished.
Facts: Ganesh is a well-known artist and his paintings have earned recognition
worldwide. One day he paints a picture titled ‘mother earth’ wherein he depicted a
naked woman and from her womb a plant coming out. He puts this painting in
exhibition.
Decision:
1.Ganesh must be punished.
2.Ganesh cannot be punished because his painting is an art and it cannot be called
obscene.
3.Ganesh has made a painting, which portrays a naked woman and is indeed
obscene thus he must be punished.
4.Ganesh has abused his freedom of expression by painting an obscene picture thus
he must be punished.

Reasons:
a. Ganesh’s art is obscene
b. Ganesh has hurt the sentiments of people
c. Ganesh is corrupting minds of young people
d. Ganesh’s act is beyond his right to free expression
e. In pursuit of art and other creative expression there is no obscenity
Your decision with reason:
a. 1, a
b. 2, e
c. 3, c
d. 4, d

1
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

2. Principles:
i. Agreement in restraint of trade is basically void, however not always and under
exceptional circumstances, it is valid.
ii. Art. 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of trade
iii. Buyer of goodwill has right to restrain the seller from starting similar business,
subject to reasonable conditions.
Facts: Yasim sold his reputed tailoring shop of 25 years standing to Zaheer
charging a high price for the goodwill of the shop, the only condition attached being
that Yasim should not establish another tailoring shop of his own anywhere in India
for an indefinite period. This agreement is
Decision:
1. void on account of unreasonable condition
2. valid there being a complete meeting of two minds
3. valid because high price for goodwill was given
4. void on account of agreement in restraint of trade
Reasons:
a. There are varied business opportunities available to Yasim.
b. Yasim willingly signed the agreement
c. Yasim has charged a very high price for goodwill and such a restriction is valid
d. The restriction imposed on Yasim is highly unfair and not reasonable
Your decision with reason:
a. 1, d
b. 2, b
c. 3, c
d. 4, d

3. Principles:
1. Any law made by the Parliament that infringes the fundamental rights of the
citizen is invalid and unenforceable.
2. Freedom to carry on trade or profession of one’s own choice is a fundamental
right.
3. The Parliament is competent to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
this right.
4. If the restrictions, of fundamental rights imposed by the Parliament, totally
removes or nullifies any fundamental right when it will be construed as an
unreasonable restriction.
Factual Situation: In order to ensure that people live in an amicable
atmosphere the Government of India decided to abolish courts and constituted
Dispute Settlement Boards. Further, to achieve this objective, the law stipulated

2
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

that lawyers should not be allowed to espouse the claims of parties, and instead
their claims be espoused by social workers.
a. The law made by the Parliament is valid as it does not infringe any
fundamental right.
b. The law made by the Parliament is valid as even though there is restriction
of fundamental right, such a restriction is reasonable.
c. The law made by the Parliament is invalid as it constitutes an infringement of
fundamental rights and the restriction imposed is not reasonable.
d. None of the above answers is correct.

4. Principle: Only the original owner of the goods has authority to sell.
Factual Situation: Ramesh was the owner of a motorcar. He lent his car to his
brother-in-law, Vimal for driving for a few days. Vimal’s neighbour, Harish, a big
industrialist saw the car and liked it and immediately offered Vimal a good amount
for the car. Vimal sold the car to Manish against Rs. 5 lakhs. Ramesh wanted the car
back.
a. Ramesh can get the car back, because he is the real owner. Vimal is not
owner though he possessed the car. Harish has no title to the car.
b. Ramesh cannot get the car back, because Harish has paid for the car.
c. Ramesh cannot get the car but shall get Rs. 5,00,000 the sale amount.
d. Ramesh cannot get the car but he has to complete the sale procedure.

5. Principle: A person is said to cause an effect “voluntarily” whereby he intended to

cause it or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had
reason to believe, to be likely to cause it.
Factual Situation: A sets fire, in the night, to an inhabited house in a large town,
for the purpose of facilitating a robbery and this caused death of a person. A pleaded
that he had intended the robbery but not the cause of death and became sorry for
the death caused by his act. Decide.
a. A is liable for causing the death voluntarily though he has not intended to cause
death of any one, because he has set fire in an inhabited house not in abandoned
house and it is quite natural that in such houses people must be there during
night.
b. A is not liable because he had not intended the murder of any one.
c. A is not liable for murder but is liable for robbery only.
d. A is not responsible for murder because he has not killed anyone with his own
hands.

3
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

6. Principle: Every citizen of Indian has a fundamental right to carry on any trade
or business or profession of his choice subject to the imposition of reasonable
restrictions by the State.
Facts: In pursuance of an order passed by the Supreme Court of India, the
Government of Delhi bans all light motor vehicles, which do not conform to Euro-II
norms. Arvind Motors, an auto-dealer challenges the ban as it violates his right to
carry his business.
a. The Govt. of Delhi has a superior right and the ban is justified.
b. The ban is justified, as the right of Arvind Motors to carry his business is not
absolute.
c. The ban is not justified, as the Govt. of Delhi cannot deprive any person of his
right to carry on his business.
d. None of the above

7. Principle: A pregnant woman employee is eligible to take 4 months maternity leave

with pay. She can avail the leave from the 8th month of her pregnancy.
Facts : Ms. Shantala is working for a Bio-technology company for the last three
years. She is not married but has become pregnant. She is in the early 8 th month of
her pregnancy.
a. Ms. Shantala cannot take maternity leave as she is not married
b. Becoming pregnant without marriage is immoral
c. Ms. Shantala can take 4 months maternity leave after disclosing as to who is
responsible for her pregnancy.
d. Ms. Shantala can take 4 months maternity leave after producing medical
certificate

8. Principle: The partnership firm is liable for the wrongful acts of every partner.
Facts: A, a partner in a firm, bought stolen goods from a person at a cheap rate and
sold them in the name of the firm. The other partner knew nothing about the stolen
goods. Can the innocent partner be made liable for the act of the other partner?
a. The firm is not liable for the act of A as it is an act of Tort.
b. The firm is liable for the act of A as it is a wrongful act done in the course of
business.
c. The firm is not liable for the act of A as the act does not fall within the
purview of implied authority.
d. The innocent partner is alone liable

9. Principle: An agreement to do an impossible act shall be void

Factual situation: Olga, a German National was a famous hiker and has climbed a
number of peaks in Germany & Switzerland in record time. When she was in India,
4
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

Jairam, a rich man promised to offer her Rupees one crore if she could climb Mount
Everest in 15 minutes. But Olga was unable to even complete 1/10th of the total
distance in the said time. Is Jairam’s offer valid?
a. Yes.
b. No, because Olga has not climbed any Indian Peak
c. Yes, because it was done to motivate Olga for setting a world record time
d. No, because it was a contract to do an impossible act

10.Principle: One of the fundamental duties of citizens is to respect National

Flag and National Anthem. It has to be noted that fundamental duties are
not enforceable. The Constitution also confers freedom of religion as a
fundamental right. Every citizen is free to follow the dictates of his
religion.

Facts: X, a citizen of India belonging to a particular religious sect, is serving the

police force. He refuses to salute the National flag and sing National Anthem on the
ground that as per his religious injunctions, he cannot glorify anybody other than the
God. The disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him.
a. X need not salute the National Flag nor sing the National Anthem, as right to
religion has an overriding effect on fundamental duty, which is not enforceable.
b. X should salute the National flag and sing the National Anthem, as these acts
are secular and has nothing to do with religion.
c. As X is a part of the police force, therefore he should set a good example.
d. None of the above
11.Principle: Right to carry on any occupation, trade or business is a
Fundamental Right under Indian Constitution and is subject to
restrictions. The State is under an obligation under the Directive Principles
of State Policy to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on scientific
lines, and towards that goal, take steps to prohibit cow slaughter.
Fact: The State of Bihar passed a legislation totally prohibiting cow slaughter.
Rahim, a butcher, a trading in meat of all animals including cows, challenged this
legislation as violating his fundamental right to carry on his business. Decide the
case.
a. Rahim will win as his fundamental right to carry on occupation is vitiated by this
legislation.
b. Rahim will win as his religion permits him to carry on this trade.
c. Rahim will not win as the Government is obliged to implement directive
principles into law, and Rahim does not enjoy absolute right of trade .
d. Rahim will not win as this legislation is in effect in many States
5
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

12.Principle: Every person has a right to complete immunity of his person

from physical interference of others, except in so far as the contact may be
necessary under the general doctrine of privilege.
Fact: A cancer patient, undergoing treatment in a hospital, reached the terminal
stage. It was clear to everyone including the personal physician of the patient that
the end was near. At that stage, the specialist doctor, in charge of the treatment,
administered a drug which was at the stage of experimentation without the consent
of the patient. The experiment had established that the drug could control the
spread of cancer cells to some extent. The patient died soon after. When the
relatives of the patient came to know about this incident, they filed a suit against the
hospital and the doctor charging them for assault and battery, i.e. unjustified
physical interference.
a. The doctor is liable, since he has acted without the consent of the patient.
b. The doctor is not liable, since he was motivated by the welfare of the patient.
c. The doctor is not liable, since it was in the general public interest that the new
drugs should be developed.
d. None of the above

13.Principle: Master is liable to the acts of the servant, in the course of

latter’s employment.
Fact: A and B run a partnership firm. After a late night party at B’s place, A
borrowed B’s car and instructed B’s servant C to drive the car and drop him back at
his place. After dropping A at his place, C while driving the car back to B’s place,
caused an accident injuring D. The insurance company refuses to pay compensation
as the police report stated that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of
liquor, at the time of accident.
a. A, B and C should jointly compensate D
b. B, is liable in the capacity of the master.
c. C, as the one who caused the accident, should compensate D.
d. A, as the one who authorized C to drive the vehicle, should compensate D

14.Principle: If any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to

maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, she can claim
maintenance from her husband by filing an application before the Judicial
Magistrate.
Facts: Ms. Poonam Saxena is married to Mr. Rajesh Khanna for the last two years.
Ms. Poonam is working as a Lecturer and gets a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. Mr.
Rajesh Khanna is an Industrialist and earns about Rs.2.5 lakhs per month. Because

6
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

of some misunderstanding between the two, Ms. Poonam Saxena is living separately
in a rented house.
a. Ms. Poonam Saxena can claim maintenance from her husband as he is earning
lot more than her.
b. Ms. Poonam Saxena cannot claim maintenance from Mr. Rajesh Khanna.
c. Mr. Rajesh Khanna has a duty to pay maintenance to his wife in the given
circumstances.
d. Marriage is sacred and they should sort out their misunderstandings

15.Principle: The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and

expression to all the citizens subject to the right of the state to make a law
and impose restrictions on this freedom in the interest of sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation, incitement of an offence.
Facts: Twinkle TV, a Hong Kong based Satellite. TV Company introduces a new
channel called as ‘Channel XXX’ which can be viewed in India. It is meant for adults
since it telecasts only adult films. The Government of India passes a law and bans
viewing of this channel and other similar channels in India. It also makes reception
and circulation of such programmes by cable TV operators a punishable offence.
This is likely to result into considerable financial loss for cable TV operators
throughout India because they were expecting massive viewership for Channel XXX.
The cable TV Operators’ Federation in New Delhi files a writ petition in the Supreme
Court challenging the validity of the new law as contradictory to freedom of speech
and expression. Decide.
a. The Cable TV operators’ federation will win, as Art. 19 of the Constitution
guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
b. The cable TV operators’ Federation will win as other forms of Adult content is
available in magazines, internet etc
c. Audience has the right to choose whatever content they want to watch on TV.
d. Government will win, because under Article.19, freedom of speech and
expression is not an absolute right, but subject to reasonable restrictions

16.Principle: No one can be allowed to be enriched/ benefited without a

cause
Fact: Ramu, a milkman delivered a liter of milk everyday to Changani’s house. All
family members of Changani went out of station for couple of days. Ramu was not
informed about the same. Ghosal, who is next-door neighbour, consumed that milk,

7
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

Ramu came to know from another person about the incident and demanded the
price for milk from Ghosal.
a. Ramu cannot demand the price for milk from Ghosal as there is no contract
between two of them
b. Changani can demand the price of milk from Ghosal.
c. Ramu can demand the price for milk from Ghosal.
d. Ramu cannot demand the price for milk from either Ghosal or Changani

17.Principle: No person should be condemned unheard.

Fact: There was a complaint against a Government servant that he had accepted
bribe from a person of showing favour to him. A show cause notice was issued to the
Government servant asking him show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not
be initiated against him. He submitted the representation in reply to the show cause
notice. The officer in-charge then submitted his report to the disciplinary authority
to the effect that the charge was proved. The Government servant was the
dismissed from service. He contends that he was not given an opportunity of being
heard. Decide
a. Government servant has been issued a show cause notice, which means he has
got the opportunity to be heard
b. Government servant was not afforded an opportunity to explain his defence to
the authorities.
c. There is enough evidence to show that the government servant was guilty.
d. The government servant should approach the court

18.Principle: A decision must be taken after hearing both sides.

Fact: A charge sheet is issued against a government servant and an Enquiry Officer
is appointed to hold an enquiry and submit his report. A few witnesses are examined
to give evidence in support of the charges and against the person facing the enquiry.
The government servant requests the Enquiry Officer to permit him to cross examine
the witnesses who have deposed against him. The Enquiry Officer refused the prayer
for cross examination. The Government servant questions the validity of the enquiry
proceeding on the ground that he was not given an adequate opportunity of being
heard. Decide.
a. The accused need not be given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses
b. The government servant is justified as he was not given an opportunity to
counter witnesses and prove his defence.
c. The government servant can challenge the witness in the court.
d. The Enquiry Officer has indeed heard both sides

8
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

19.Principle: No person can be a judge in his own cause.

Fact: An admission test is to be held to select the best student for admission on
merit. The father of a candidate without disclosing that his son is appearing in the
test is involved in conducting the test. Objections are taken on the ground that the
sanctity of the test is vitiated as a person interested in the test has taken part in
conducting it. Decide
a. This rule applies only to Judges of civil or criminal court
b. There are other members on the examination committee to ensure fairness
c. Since the father’s interest conflicts with his duty, the test is invalid.
d. Both options a & b

20.Principle: A private doctor is as much bound as his government

counterparts to render help to dying persons, irrespective of whether they
are his patients or not.
Facts: Virender, a soldier, was bleeding profusely from a knife injury after resisting a
gang of robbers. He was rushed to the clinic of a General Physician Dr Satya who
slammed the door of his Friendly-Block clinic on Virender. A few minutes later,
Virender died. Decide
a. Satya was under no obligation to help the injured person as he was a private
practitioner and there was no relationship of consumer and service provider
between the two.
b. Satya should be fined for not attending to an injured person brought to his clinic.
c. Satya is not responsible to treat someone emerging from a scene of crime
d. Satya was not in a position to judge the extent of injury to Virender

ANSWERS ON NEXT PAGE

9
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

Q.No Answer Hints / Explanations

1 b Answer is self explanatory. Note that the principle does not include ‘art’.

2 a Agreement in restraint of trade in the context of sale of goodwill is

actually valid, but in this case, it is void because of unreasonable terms
such as total restraint on the seller. Students should not pick option ’d’,
because this agreement is void not because of just restraint in trade but
on account of unreasonable conditions attached to the restraint (Yasim
should not establish another tailoring shop of his own anywhere in India
for an indefinite period.)

3 c It is an unreasonable restriction as it prevents lawyers from exercising

their fundamental right to practice their profession.

4 a As Vimal is not the owner of the car, he could not have passed any title to
Manish. Ramesh can get the car back from Manish.

5 a Option is self-explanatory

6 b Article 19 which includes right to carry on trade, business etc is not an

absolute one and is subject to reasonable restriction. The restriction in
this case is reasonable, as pollution is a major problem in Delhi

7 d It is immaterial whether she was married or not. The law only states that
a pregnant woman employee is eligible for maternity leave.

8 b Straightforward application of the principle

9 d As the agreement involves the performance of an act which impossible,

the offer is invalid.

10 a Fundamental right to religion gives citizens the right to follow its dictates.
Fundamental duties are not justiciable

11 c Fundamental Right to trade/profession is not an absolute right, but

subject to reasonable restrictions. Rahim can still carry on his trade as he
is a dealer in all types of meat and only cow slaughter is banned.

10
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Legal Reasoning] – LA-O4

12 a As the doctor failed to take the consent of the patient/ his relative, he is
liable.

13 b Straightforward application of the principle

14 b As Poonam has means of income of her own, she cannot claim

maintenance.

15 d Fundamental Right to speech and expression is subject to reasonable

restrictions, Government will win in this case.

16 c As Ghosal had consumed milk belonging to Changini, he is liable to

compensate Ramu.
17 a Government servant was indeed given an opportunity to be heard in the
form of show-cause notice.

18 b Government servant was denied the opportunity to cross examine the

witnesses.

19 c Validity of the test is questionable, as there will be a doubt regarding

transparency and fair judgment.

20 b Straightforward application of the principle

11
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.