Which case established the rule that “equity acts in personam”? a) Penn v. Lord Baltimore (1750) b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
Answer: a) Penn v. Lord Baltimore (1750)
Explanation: This case demonstrated that equity’s jurisdiction applies to persons, not to the property itself. The court ruled that the equitable remedy would bind the parties personally regardless of the location of the property involved.
Question 147
The principle of “conversion by contract” was established in which case? a) Fletcher v. Ashburner (1779) b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947)
Answer: a) Fletcher v. Ashburner (1779)
Explanation: This case introduced the principle of equitable conversion, where equity regards things agreed to be done as already done, provided that the agreement is enforceable.
Question 148
In which case did the court explain the doctrine of “constructive trust”? a) Blackburn v. Brown (1857) b) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615) c) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) d) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
Answer: a) Blackburn v. Brown (1857)
Explanation: The court discussed that a constructive trust arises by operation of law, especially when someone wrongfully retains property that they are obliged to transfer to the rightful owner.
Question 149
Which case elaborated on the equitable principle of “rescission of contract”? a) Leaf v. International Galleries (1950) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Answer: a) Leaf v. International Galleries (1950)
Explanation: This case held that a contract can be rescinded in equity where misrepresentation or mistake has induced the contract, but there must not be undue delay in seeking rescission.
Question 150
The doctrine of “equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy” was primarily established in which case? a) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615) b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
Answer: a) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
Explanation: This case set the foundation for equity’s intervention when the common law fails to provide a remedy for an injustice, ensuring that no wrong goes unaddressed.
Question 151
Which case introduced the principle of “proprietary estoppel” in equity? a) Taylor Fashions Ltd. v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd. (1982) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
Answer: a) Taylor Fashions Ltd. v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd. (1982)
Explanation: This case laid down the modern approach to proprietary estoppel, where a party is prevented from denying rights if their actions led another party to act to their detriment based on a belief in those rights.
Question 152
In which case was the principle of “unconscionable bargains” recognized in equity? a) Fry v. Lane (1888) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Answer: a) Fry v. Lane (1888)
Explanation: This case recognized that equity can intervene to set aside agreements where one party took advantage of another’s vulnerability to secure an unfair bargain.
Question 153
Which case is known for discussing the equitable principle of “rectification for fraud or mistake”? a) Joscelyne v. Nissen (1970) b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
Answer: a) Joscelyne v. Nissen (1970)
Explanation: This case held that rectification is available where the written terms of a contract do not reflect the common intention of the parties due to fraud or mistake.
Question 154
Which case in Indian law emphasized the principle of “natural justice” in administrative actions? a) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
Answer: a) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Explanation: The Supreme Court of India ruled that principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, must be followed in administrative actions to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness.
Question 155
The rule that “equity does not recognize time limits unless specified in law” was discussed in which case? a) Laches v. Miller (1880) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
Answer: a) Laches v. Miller (1880)
Explanation: This case established that equity does not recognize the statute of limitations unless expressly stated but applies the doctrine of laches to bar claims based on unreasonable delay.
Here are some additional questions with Indian leading cases, focusing on the law of equity:
Question 156
In which case did the Supreme Court of India establish that “equity will not assist a volunteer”? a) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999) b) Dastane v. Dastane (1975) c) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1983) d) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1986)
Answer: b) Dastane v. Dastane (1975)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a volunteer (someone who has no obligation or right) cannot seek equitable relief unless they have a legal interest in the matter. The principle was established to prevent unjust enrichment.
Question 157
Which case upheld the principle that “equity does not assist a person who has come with unclean hands”? a) Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) b) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (1999) c) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1986) d) S.R. Srinivasa v. G.V. Srinivasa (1985)
Answer: a) Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Explanation: In this case, the Supreme Court applied the equitable principle of “unclean hands,” which bars a person from seeking equitable relief if they have acted dishonestly or improperly in relation to the matter at hand.
Question 158
In which case was the concept of “equitable estoppel” used in Indian law? a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996) b) Central Bank of India v. Madhulika S. (2006) c) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) d) Raghunandan Prasad v. Bhagwan Das (2010)
Answer: c) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
Explanation: The case applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, where a party is estopped from going back on its promises or representations if it has led the other party to reasonably rely on them to their detriment. The Indian Supreme Court recognized this principle, emphasizing fairness and justice.
Question 159
Which case dealt with the “principle of equitable remedy of injunction” in the Indian context? a) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2000) b) P.C. Sen v. State of West Bengal (1984) c) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1986) d) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999)
Answer: a) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2000)
Explanation: The case dealt with the equitable remedy of injunction, emphasizing that an injunction can be granted when there is a threat of irreparable harm, and legal remedies are inadequate to provide full relief. The court highlighted the importance of fairness in granting injunctions.
Question 160
In which case did the Indian Supreme Court apply the doctrine of “constructive trust”? a) Ramakrishna v. Sarada Devi (2000) b) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1983) c) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2000) d) Ram Chandra v. T.C. Bhanwarlal (2006)
Answer: a) Ramakrishna v. Sarada Devi (2000)
Explanation: The court in this case applied the doctrine of constructive trust, recognizing that a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another can be compelled to hold the property in trust for the rightful owner. The principle aims to prevent unjust enrichment through equitable remedies.
Question 161
Which Indian case established the principle that a trust can be enforced even in the absence of a formal written document? a) Laxman Rao v. S. Rajagopal (1989) b) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) c) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1986) d) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999)
Answer: a) Laxman Rao v. S. Rajagopal (1989)
Explanation: The court held that a trust could be enforced based on oral agreements or conduct, provided there is clear evidence of the intent to create the trust and the terms can be demonstrated. This reflects the flexibility of equity in enforcing just claims.
Question 162
In which case did the Supreme Court of India discuss the equitable principle of “rescission of contract”? a) Janki v. Shivnandan (1984) b) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1983) c) Chandrika Prasad v. Shyam Sundar (2004) d) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996)
Answer: a) Janki v. Shivnandan (1984)
Explanation: This case emphasized that rescission of contract is an equitable remedy that can be granted when the contract was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence. The remedy allows for the cancellation of the contract to restore the parties to their original position.
Question 163
Which Indian case discussed the principle of “laches” in equity? a) Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad (1971) b) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996) c) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (1999) d) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999)
Answer: a) Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad (1971)
Explanation: In this case, the court discussed the doctrine of laches, which bars a party from seeking equitable relief if they have unduly delayed in asserting their claim, causing prejudice to the opposing party.
Question 164
Which case is significant for the principle of “specific performance” of a contract in India? a) Chandrakant v. State of Gujarat (1999) b) S. Ramaswamy v. M.C. Chockalingam (2001) c) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1983) d) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996)
Answer: a) Chandrakant v. State of Gujarat (1999)
Explanation: The case emphasized that specific performance, an equitable remedy, can be granted when damages are inadequate to remedy the harm, particularly in contracts involving unique goods or land. The court highlighted the discretionary nature of specific performance.
Question 165
In which Indian case was the concept of “account of profits” applied? a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996) b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) c) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2000) d) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999)
Answer: a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996)
Explanation: This case applied the principle of “account of profits,” holding that a person who has wrongfully benefited from another’s property must account for those profits. The court emphasized that the equitable remedy aims to prevent unjust enrichment.
Question 166
Which case established the principle that a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another must restore the value of that enrichment? a) S.R. Srinivasa v. G.V. Srinivasa (1985) b) Raghunandan Prasad v. Bhagwan Das (2010) c) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996) d) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2000)
Answer: b) Raghunandan Prasad v. Bhagwan Das (2010)
Explanation: This case reinforced the equitable principle of unjust enrichment, where a person who benefits unfairly at the expense of another must restore the value of that benefit to the rightful owner, ensuring fairness.
Question 167
Which case upheld the equitable principle that “equity will not assist a person who has violated public policy”? a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996) b) Gopalakrishnan v. Madanlal (1997) c) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1986) d) S. Ramaswamy v. M.C. Chockalingam (2001)
Answer: b) Gopalakrishnan v. Madanlal (1997)
Explanation: In this case, the Indian court emphasized that equity will not aid a party involved in an illegal contract or one that violates public policy. The decision reinforced the principle that equity upholds legality and fairness.
Question 168
Which Indian case recognized that the principle of “equitable fraud” could apply even in cases of contract? a) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2000) b) S.R. Srinivasa v. G.V. Srinivasa (1985) c) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (1999) d) Dastane v. Dastane (1975)
Answer: a) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2000)
Explanation: This case applied the principle of equitable fraud, where the court held that fraud in equity does not require active misrepresentation, but can include any misleading act that leads to unjust enrichment at the expense of another.
Question 169
In which case did the Indian court discuss the principle of “equitable mortgage” by deposit of title deeds? a) Saroj Kumar v. Jitendra Kumar (2001) b) Raghunandan Prasad v. Bhagwan Das (2010) c) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1983) d) S. Ramaswamy v. M.C. Chockalingam (2001)
Answer: a) Saroj Kumar v. Jitendra Kumar (2001)
Explanation: This case established the principle of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, holding that the deposit of the title deeds of property with the intention of creating security for a debt creates an equitable charge on the property, even without a formal written document.
Question 170
Which case in India dealt with the “principle of equitable estoppel” when a person has acted in reliance on another’s misrepresentation or conduct? a) M.C. Chockalingam v. S. Ramaswamy (2000) b) Raghunandan Prasad v. Bhagwan Das (2010) c) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1986) d) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
Answer: d) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
Explanation: This case highlighted the equitable principle of estoppel, stating that if a party has made a representation or promise that another party has relied on, the first party cannot later deny it to the detriment of the second party.
Question 171
Which case in Indian law applied the principle of “proprietary estoppel” to prevent a person from denying rights after another has relied on their representation? a) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999) b) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (1999) c) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) d) Raghunandan Prasad v. Bhagwan Das (2010)
Answer: a) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999)
Explanation: The case applied the principle of proprietary estoppel, where the court held that if one person has made a representation about the ownership or rights over property, and the other has acted on it to their detriment, the first person cannot later deny the representation.
Question 172
In which case was it held that “equity aids the vigilant and not the slothful,” reinforcing the principle of laches in Indian law? a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996) b) Raghunandan Prasad v. Bhagwan Das (2010) c) Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad (1971) d) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
Answer: c) Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad (1971)
Explanation: The Indian court emphasized that equity will not assist a party who has delayed in bringing a claim when they could have done so sooner, thus applying the principle of laches to prevent stale claims. The decision reinforces the importance of timely action in seeking equitable relief.
Question 173
Which case recognized that a gift made with the intention of creating an equitable interest could be enforced despite the absence of a formal deed? a) Saroj Kumar v. Jitendra Kumar (2001) b) Raghunandan Prasad v. Bhagwan Das (2010) c) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1983) d) Dastane v. Dastane (1975)
Answer: a) Saroj Kumar v. Jitendra Kumar (2001)
Explanation: The case confirmed that even without a formal written deed, an intention to create an equitable interest through a gift can be enforced in equity, provided the elements of an equitable gift are satisfied.
Question 174
In which case did the Indian Supreme Court hold that “equity regards as done that which ought to be done”? a) S.R. Srinivasa v. G.V. Srinivasa (1985) b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999)
Answer: b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
Explanation: While not an Indian case originally, this principle was adopted in Indian law in cases like S.R. Srinivasa v. G.V. Srinivasa (1985). It is a foundational equitable principle that treats what ought to be done as already done in equity, ensuring fairness even before formal actions are completed.
Question 175
Which case upheld the doctrine of “constructive trust” in relation to the misappropriation of funds in Indian law? a) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999) b) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1983) c) Raghunandan Prasad v. Bhagwan Das (2010) d) Shyam Sundar v. Ranjit Singh (1999)
Answer: a) Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao (1999)
Explanation: This case reaffirmed the principle of constructive trust in Indian law, holding that if a person wrongfully retains funds or property that they were not entitled to, they hold it in trust for the rightful owner. This ensures that the person who has been unjustly deprived of their property can seek restitution through equity.
