Match List-I (name of case) with List-II (name of defense) and give the correct answer by using the given below:
| List I (Decided case) | List II (Principle stated) |
| a. Samira Kohli v. Prabha Manchanda | 1. Plaintiff a wrong-doer |
| b. Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee | 2. Leave and licence |
| c. Bird v. Holbrook | 3. Act of God |
| d. Kallulal v. Hemchand | 4. Necessity |
A. a-2, b-4, c-1, d-3
B. a-1, b-2, c-4, d-3
C. a-2, b-1, c-3, d-4
D. a-3, b-1, c-2, d-4
Answer: Option A
This Question Belongs to Law >> Law Of Torts
Join The Discussion
Comments (1)
The 'tort of intimidation' was propounded in
A. Winterbottom v. Wright
B. Pasley v. Freeman
C. Winsmore v. Greenbank
D. Rookes v. Barnard
The maxim 'scienti non fit injuria' means
A. Where there is no fault, there is no remedy
B. Mere knowledge does not imply consent to take risk
C. Mere giving consent does not imply to take risk
D. Scientific knowledge is not enough to cause injury
A. Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co.
B. Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners
C. Derry v. Peek
D. Cann v. Willson
A. Section 82 of the Evidence Act
B. Section 102 of the Evidence Act
C. Section 122 of the Evidence Act
D. Section 124 of the Evidence Act
Sir,
In the case of Kallulal v. Hemchand the plea of 'res ipsa loquitur' was discussed, however, act of God was never pleaded. The matter resulted in conviction. Therefore, there seems to be error in the question itself. Kindly examine this.
Tilak Singh V
tilakinghv@gmail.com