Additional Multiple Choice Questions on Indian Law of Equity (With Case Laws)
Question 101
The principle “He who seeks equity must do equity” was established in which case?
a) Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mukherjee (1876)
b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
c) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
d) Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay (1961)
[read more] Answer: a) Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mukherjee (1876)
Explanation: This principle requires a party seeking equitable relief to act fairly and fulfill any obligations they owe. The case emphasized mutual fairness in equity. [/read]
Question 102
In which case was the doctrine of promissory estoppel recognized in Indian law?
a) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
b) Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Subramanian v. L.I.C. (1958)
[read more] Answer: a) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
Explanation: This case established that the government cannot go back on its promise if a party has relied on it to their detriment, thereby introducing the doctrine of promissory estoppel in Indian law. [/read]
Question 103
The principle “Delay defeats equity” was applied in which of the following cases?
a) Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874)
b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
c) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986)
d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
[read more] Answer: a) Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874)
Explanation: This case emphasized the doctrine of laches, which prevents claimants from seeking equitable remedies if they delay unreasonably in asserting their rights. [/read]
Question 104
The maxim “Equity regards as done that which ought to be done” was applied in which case?
a) Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882)
b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
[read more] Answer: a) Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882)
Explanation: The court held that an agreement to lease property, though not executed as a formal lease, could be enforced because equity treats as done that which ought to be done. [/read]
Question 105
In which case was the doctrine of “clean hands” emphasized?
a) D & C Builders Ltd. v. Rees (1965)
b) Ashby v. White (1703)
c) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
d) Smith v. Hughes (1871)
[read more] Answer: a) D & C Builders Ltd. v. Rees (1965)
Explanation: This case illustrated that a party cannot seek equitable relief if they themselves have acted unfairly or dishonestly, adhering to the principle of “clean hands.” [/read]
Question 106
Which case is associated with the recognition of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in India?
a) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997)
b) Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897)
c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
[read more] Answer: a) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997)
Explanation: This case established the principle that no one should be unjustly enriched at the expense of another, requiring restitution to correct the imbalance. [/read]
Question 107
In which case was the doctrine of equitable estoppel first recognized in Indian law?
a) Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. Sourajmull (1880)
b) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
c) Subramanian v. L.I.C. (1958)
d) Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
[read more] Answer: a) Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. Sourajmull (1880)
Explanation: The doctrine of equitable estoppel was recognized to prevent a party from going back on their representation when another has relied upon it. [/read]
Question 108
The principle of “relief against forfeiture” was applied in which case?
a) Surya Kumar Bhattacharya v. Gour Mohan Mullick (1921)
b) Lloyd’s Bank Ltd. v. Bundy (1975)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
[read more] Answer: a) Surya Kumar Bhattacharya v. Gour Mohan Mullick (1921)
Explanation: Relief against forfeiture prevents unfair penalties for breaches of contract and ensures fairness in contractual relationships. [/read]
Question 109
The equitable principle “Equity follows the law” was reinforced in which case?
a) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
c) Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897)
d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
[read more] Answer: a) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
Explanation: This case established that equity does not override the law but works in harmony with it, supplementing legal remedies to achieve fairness. [/read]
Question 110
Which case is associated with the equitable remedy of rectification?
a) Craddock Bros. Ltd. v. Hunt (1923)
b) Ashby v. White (1703)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
[read more] Answer: a) Craddock Bros. Ltd. v. Hunt (1923)
Explanation: In this case, rectification was applied to correct a mistake in a contract, ensuring that the written agreement reflected the true intentions of the parties. [/read]
Question 111
Which case dealt with the application of the principle of injunction in equity?
a) Fletcher v. Bealey (1884)
b) Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
[read more] Answer: a) Fletcher v. Bealey (1884)
Explanation: This case established that injunctions could be granted to prevent anticipated harm or nuisance, even before damage had occurred, protecting the plaintiff’s rights. [/read]
Question 112
The equitable remedy of specific performance was applied in which of the following cases?
a) Lumley v. Wagner (1852)
b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Ashby v. White (1703)
[read more] Answer: a) Lumley v. Wagner (1852)
Explanation: In this case, specific performance was granted to prevent a breach of contract by compelling the defendant to fulfill their contractual obligations. [/read]
Question 113
The concept of fiduciary duties was highlighted in which case?
a) Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v. Gulliver (1942)
b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
d) Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897)
[read more] Answer: a) Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v. Gulliver (1942)
Explanation: This case highlighted the importance of fiduciary duties, requiring directors to act in the best interests of the company and not for personal gain. [/read]
Question 114
Which case established the principle that equity regards as done what ought to be done?
a) Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882)
b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
[read more] Answer: a) Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882)
Explanation: In this case, equity treated a lease agreement as if it had been formally executed, recognizing the parties’ intentions as if already fulfilled. [/read]
Question 115
Which case is associated with the principle that “Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy”?
a) Ashby v. White (1703)
b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
c) Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897)
d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
[read more] Answer: a) Ashby v. White (1703)
Explanation: This case is a landmark judgment where the principle was upheld that if a right exists, there must also be a remedy available for its violation, reinforcing the equitable maxim. [/read]
Question 116
The principle of “unconscionability” was applied in which case to set aside a contract?
a) Lloyd’s Bank Ltd. v. Bundy (1975)
b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
[read more] Answer: a) Lloyd’s Bank Ltd. v. Bundy (1975)
Explanation: In this case, the contract was set aside on the grounds that it was unconscionable and one-sided, as the bank had exploited its stronger bargaining position. [/read]
Question 117
Which case highlighted the doctrine of mutual mistake in equity?
a) Solle v. Butcher (1950)
b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
[read more] Answer: a) Solle v. Butcher (1950)
Explanation: This case addressed the equitable principle that a contract may be set aside if both parties were mistaken about a fundamental fact at the time of formation. [/read]
Question 118
In which case was the doctrine of estoppel clarified in India?
a) Smt. Chandrani v. Smt. Kamala Devi (1964)
b) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
c) Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. Sourajmull (1880)
d) Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay (1961)
[read more] Answer: c) Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. Sourajmull (1880)
Explanation: The doctrine of estoppel was clarified in this case, preventing a party from denying a statement they had previously made, which another party relied upon. [/read]
Question 119
The principle of “Equity looks to the intent rather than the form” was applied in which case?
a) Berry v. Berry (1929)
b) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
c) Lumley v. Wagner (1852)
d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
[read more] Answer: a) Berry v. Berry (1929)
Explanation: In this case, equity considered the intention of the parties to determine the validity of an agreement, regardless of its formality or wording. [/read]
Question 120
Which case reinforced the principle that “Equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights”?
a) Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874)
b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
c) Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897)
d) Ashby v. White (1703)
[read more] Answer: a) Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874)
Explanation: This case emphasized that unreasonable delay in seeking equitable relief may bar the claim due to the doctrine of laches. [/read]
Question 121
The principle of “Equity acts in personam” was discussed in which case?
a) Penn v. Lord Baltimore (1750)
b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
[read more] Answer: a) Penn v. Lord Baltimore (1750)
Explanation: This case highlighted that equity operates personally on individuals, compelling or restraining them from certain actions regardless of the location of the subject matter. [/read]
Question 122
In which case was the principle of unjust enrichment applied to restore a wrongfully obtained benefit?
a) Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. (1943)
b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
[read more] Answer: a) Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. (1943)
Explanation: This case dealt with the return of money when a contract was frustrated, emphasizing that one party should not unjustly retain a benefit. [/read]
Question 123
Which case is known for applying the principle of constructive trust in equity?
a) Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Islington LBC (1996)
b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Ashby v. White (1703)
[read more] Answer: a) Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Islington LBC (1996)
Explanation: This case reinforced the principle of constructive trust, where a person holding property is deemed to do so for the benefit of another due to unjust enrichment or wrongdoing. [/read]
Question 124
Which case is significant for the application of equitable estoppel in contracts?
a) Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947)
b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
[read more] Answer: a) Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947)
Explanation: This case introduced the modern doctrine of promissory estoppel, preventing the enforcement of strict legal rights in situations where it would be inequitable to do so. [/read]
nff2hy