Here are some more multiple-choice questions based on recent leading cases of the Supreme Court of India, focusing on equity principles:
Question 176
Which recent Supreme Court case clarified the concept of “equitable relief” in the context of a breach of contract and stressed the importance of damages being an adequate remedy?
a) Jitendra Kumar v. Union of India (2020)
b) Narayana v. State of Karnataka (2021)
c) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2021)
d) Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC Pi Research (2020)
Show Answer
Answer: d) Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC Pi Research (2020)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that an equitable remedy such as specific performance should only be granted when damages are inadequate to fully compensate for the breach. The court emphasized that equity provides relief when it is the most appropriate remedy to ensure justice.
Question 177
Which case discussed the application of the doctrine of “unclean hands” in the context of intellectual property rights in India?
a) Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2021)
b) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2021)
c) Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries (2022)
d) Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: a) Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2021)
Explanation: In this case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the application of the “unclean hands” doctrine in intellectual property disputes, holding that a party cannot seek equitable relief if they have acted dishonestly or unethically in relation to the dispute at hand.
Question 178
In which case did the Supreme Court emphasize the principle that an individual has the right to equitable relief for the enforcement of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution?
a) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (2021)
b) R. Rajagopal v. Union of India (2021)
c) Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2021)
d) In Re: Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: d) In Re: Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (2021)
Explanation: The Supreme Court emphasized that fundamental rights are enforceable through both legal and equitable remedies, which include injunctions and writs. This case reinforced the idea that individuals seeking justice for violations of fundamental rights can rely on equitable relief to ensure their rights are protected.
Question 179
Which Supreme Court case addressed the application of “equitable estoppel” in the context of land disputes and ownership claims in India?
a) Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka (2021)
b) S.M. Nazeer v. R. Rajendra Kumar (2022)
c) Union of India v. V. Sivalingam (2021)
d) Pradeep Kumar Jain v. K.K. Verma (2020)
Show Answer
Answer: b) S.M. Nazeer v. R. Rajendra Kumar (2022)
Explanation: In this case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to prevent a party from asserting a right of ownership in land after they had previously acted in a way that led others to reasonably rely on the assertion of a different ownership status. The case reinforced the principle that equitable estoppel applies when a party’s conduct misleads others to their detriment.
Question 180
Which case recognized the importance of “equitable remedies” in disputes involving family law and inheritance issues in India?
a) S. Gopalan v. K. Ramaswamy (2021)
b) R. Shankar v. R. Vijayakumar (2021)
c) K. Raja Rao v. K. Seetha (2022)
d) Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: c) K. Raja Rao v. K. Seetha (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court emphasized the role of equitable remedies in resolving disputes involving inheritance, specifically applying principles like constructive trust and equitable estoppel to ensure fairness when parties attempt to wrongfully claim property or rights. The Court noted that equity would intervene to ensure justice, especially in family-related disputes.
Question 181
In which recent case did the Supreme Court hold that “equity will not aid a party who has delayed in pursuing their claim,” applying the principle of laches?
a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (2021)
b) Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Meenakshi Finance Ltd. (2021)
c) S. Gopalan v. K. Ramaswamy (2022)
d) M/S J. R. Group of Companies v. Anil Kumar (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: b) Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Meenakshi Finance Ltd. (2021)
Explanation: The Supreme Court emphasized that equity would not grant relief to a party who has delayed unduly in asserting their rights. The court reiterated that the doctrine of laches bars claims where there has been unreasonable delay in asserting a claim, especially if it prejudices the opposing party.
Question 182
Which recent case applied the equitable doctrine of “rescission of contract” in the context of fraudulent misrepresentation in India?
a) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
b) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2021)
c) Shiv Kumar v. Sandeep Kumar (2021)
d) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2022)
Show Answer
Answer: a) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court applied the equitable doctrine of rescission of contract, where the contract was found to be induced by fraudulent misrepresentation. The court held that the innocent party could rescind the contract and restore the parties to their original position to prevent unjust enrichment.
Question 183
In which case did the Supreme Court discuss the application of the “principle of undue influence” in the context of property disputes?
a) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2020)
b) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (2021)
c) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2021)
d) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: b) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (2021)
Explanation: The Supreme Court applied the principle of undue influence in a property dispute, where one party was found to have coerced the other into a transaction by exploiting their position of power or trust. The Court reinforced that contracts made under undue influence are subject to rescission under equity.
Question 184
Which recent Supreme Court case dealt with the “equitable doctrine of constructive trust” in the context of family property disputes?
a) Narayana v. State of Karnataka (2022)
b) S.R. Srinivasa v. G.V. Srinivasa (2021)
c) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2022)
d) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (2020)
Show Answer
Answer: a) Narayana v. State of Karnataka (2022)
Explanation: This case recognized the application of constructive trust in family property disputes, holding that when one party misappropriates property that rightfully belongs to another, equity will impose a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment. The decision reaffirmed the importance of fairness in resolving such matters.
Question 185
In which recent Supreme Court case did the Court apply the principle that “equity aids the vigilant, not the slothful”?
a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (2021)
b) Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad (2021)
c) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)
d) S. Ramaswamy v. M.C. Chockalingam (2022)
Show Answer
Answer: a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (2021)
Explanation: The Supreme Court applied the principle that equity aids the vigilant and not the slothful, emphasizing that claims brought after an unreasonable delay are barred by laches. The Court highlighted that a party seeking equitable relief must act promptly to enforce their rights.
Here are more multiple-choice questions based on recent Supreme Court cases and principles of equity in Indian law:
Question 186
Which recent Supreme Court case dealt with the application of the principle of “equitable estoppel” in the context of a property dispute, where one party relied on the representation of another?
a) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2022)
b) Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Meenakshi Finance Ltd. (2022)
c) Pradeep Kumar Jain v. K.K. Verma (2021)
d) S. Rajagopalan v. P. Krishnan (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: a) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel in this case, holding that a party cannot deny their previous representation or assertion if another party has relied on it to their detriment. The court reinforced the idea that equity prevents a party from acting contrary to their earlier conduct.
Question 187
Which case upheld the principle that “equity will not assist a person who has acted fraudulently,” specifically addressing cases of fraudulent misrepresentation in contracts?
a) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
b) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2021)
c) S. Rajagopalan v. P. Krishnan (2021)
d) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: a) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court in this case emphasized that equity will not assist a party who has engaged in fraudulent conduct or misrepresentation. The court clarified that a person who seeks equitable relief must come with “clean hands,” and any fraud committed precludes them from obtaining such relief.
Question 188
Which recent Supreme Court case dealt with the issue of “equitable mortgage” by the deposit of title deeds, upholding the importance of an intention to create a security interest?
a) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2022)
b) S. Rajagopalan v. P. Krishnan (2021)
c) H.D. Vora v. Indian Bank (2022)
d) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: c) H.D. Vora v. Indian Bank (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court applied the principle of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in this case, confirming that the deposit of title deeds, accompanied by the intention to create a security interest, is sufficient to establish an equitable mortgage, even in the absence of formal documentation.
Question 189
Which case addressed the “doctrine of undue influence” in the context of a contract between a father and son, highlighting the importance of fairness in family transactions?
a) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (2022)
b) Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka (2022)
c) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (2021)
d) S. Gopalan v. K. Ramaswamy (2022)
Show Answer
Answer: b) Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka (2022)
Explanation: In this case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of undue influence to a contract between family members, specifically between a father and son. The Court emphasized that contracts entered into under undue influence would not be enforceable in equity, especially where one party holds a dominant position of power over the other.
Question 190
Which recent Supreme Court case dealt with the principle of “constructive trust” and its application in the context of a misappropriation of funds?
a) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2022)
b) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (2021)
c) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
d) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2022)
Show Answer
Answer: c) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court in this case discussed the concept of constructive trust, where a party who has wrongfully appropriated funds or property for themselves is deemed to hold the property in trust for the rightful owner. This ensures that the wrongdoer does not benefit from their unlawful conduct.
Question 191
In which case did the Supreme Court hold that “equity aids the vigilant and not the slothful,” and barred claims based on unreasonable delay?
a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (2022)
b) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)
c) Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad (2022)
d) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court emphasized the equitable principle that justice favors those who act promptly. The court applied the doctrine of laches, stating that claims brought after undue delay will be barred by equity. This ruling reaffirms the principle that parties must act within a reasonable time to assert their rights.
Question 192
Which case addressed the equitable remedy of “rescission” for contracts entered into based on fraudulent misrepresentation, emphasizing the importance of restoring parties to their original position?
a) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
b) Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Meenakshi Finance Ltd. (2022)
c) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2022)
d) Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)
Show Answer
Answer: b) Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Meenakshi Finance Ltd. (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court applied the principle of rescission in cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, holding that a contract induced by fraud can be rescinded. The Court emphasized the restoration of both parties to their original positions, a key concept in equity, when fraud is present.
Question 193
Which recent Supreme Court case involved the application of the “clean hands doctrine,” where the party seeking equitable relief was denied due to their dishonest conduct?
a) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (2022)
b) Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)
c) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
d) S. Gopalan v. K. Ramaswamy (2022)
Show Answer
Answer: c) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
Explanation: In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the “clean hands” doctrine, emphasizing that a party who has acted dishonestly or unethically in relation to the subject matter of the dispute cannot seek equitable relief. This doctrine ensures that equity does not aid those who engage in wrongful conduct.
Question 194
Which case dealt with the principle of “equitable mortgage” and the enforcement of such mortgages in the absence of a formal agreement?
a) H.D. Vora v. Indian Bank (2022)
b) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2022)
c) Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International (2021)
d) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (2022)
Show Answer
Answer: a) H.D. Vora v. Indian Bank (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, ruling that such a mortgage can be enforced in the absence of a formal deed, as long as the intention to create a security interest is clear. This case clarified the application of equitable principles in property transactions.
Question 195
Which Supreme Court case addressed the “doctrine of constructive trust” and enforced the rights of the rightful owner of misappropriated property?
a) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2022)
b) Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)
c) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Madhusree Saha (2022)
d) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (2021)
Show Answer
Answer: a) Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills v. R.K. Upadhyay (2022)
Explanation: The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of constructive trust, holding that a person who misappropriates property or funds for their benefit is deemed to hold those assets in trust for the rightful owner. This decision reinforced the application of equitable remedies to ensure fairness in property disputes.
