1. Principle: One who asserts must prove. Facts: A desires a Court to give judgment that B, C and D shall be punished for a crime which A says B, C and D have committed. (CLAT 2019)

2. Legal Principle: Sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Factual Situation: 'A' entered into an agreement with 'B' for the sale of liquor. 'A' failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to 'B'. (CLAT 2016)

3. Legal Principle: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished.
Factual Situation: Two adult men were found engaged in carnal intercourse by the police. The police arrested the men and produced them before the court. (CLAT 2013)

4. Principle: Whoever takes away any moveable thing from the land of any person without that person's consent is said to commit theft. Facts: During his visit to the home of C, A asks B, the son of C, to accompany A to a (CLAT 2019)

5. Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Factual Situation: A, a child born on 1st January 2005 killed another child B on 30th December 2011. (CLAT 2013)

6. Legal Principle: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e., readiness to bear harm.
Factual Situation: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured. (CLAT 2016)

7. A, B and C jointly promised to repay ` 90,000 to D. Before performance of the contract, C dies. Here the contract: (SET LAW 2012)

8. Legal Principle: Master/principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by an servant/agent, in the performance of his duties as an servant/agent.
Factual Situation: A gave some cash and cheques to his friend B, who was an employee of the State Bank of India, to deposit the same in that bank in the account of A. B misappropriated the amount. If A sues the bank for damages, then the bank is (AILET 2013)
Decision:

9. Legal Principle: Contract is a written or spoken agreement, with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Such an agreement is intended to be enforceable by law. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance.
Factual Situation: A Toilet Soap Manufacturing Company in India in order to promote the sale of their product, published an advertisement in all the Newspapers on January 1, 2017 that the Company has kept a model ignition key of an Audi A3 Car. The advertisement also stated that whoever gets the said key before December 31, 2017 from a soap bar will be gifted with the Audi A3 Car. Mr Martin, a foreigner who came to India as a Tourist who was staying in a Hotel found a Key similar to same Car Ignition Key. Mr Martin brought this matter to the notice of the Hotel Manager. The Manager informed Mr Martin about the Company's advertisement on January 1, 2017. Mr Martin wants to claim the Car. Will he succeed? (CLAT 2017)

10. Legal Principle: A person is responsible for that which he could have reasonably foreseen or prevented.
Factual Situation: A chemist sold a hair conditioner to Jyoti. The conditioner was locally manufactured and the contents, harmful chemicals, were listed on the bottle. The chemist, however, represented to Jyoti that the chemicals used were harmless and beneficial for the hair. On using it, Jyoti's hair was badly damaged and she had to get hair treatment done for the same. Jyoti filed a complaint against the chemist. Will the chemist be liable? (AILET 2014)
Decision:

11. Legal Principle: In the employer - employee relationship, the employer is held liable for all the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
Factual Situation: David was employed as a Driver in ABC & Co over the past 15 years and has been appreciated by the General Manager for his hard work and sincerity. He has been rewarded by the company for his accident free record. David's younger brother wanted to join the same company as a driver. He obtained a Learner's Licence, joined a Driving School and was learning driving during the last three months. He was on the verge of completion of the training and appear for the Driving test. He wanted to have more practice before the test and requested his brother David for using the Company's car for two days. David also allowed him to use the office car for the practice. While he was practising driving, a truck came from the wrong side, hit the company's car driven by David's brother, which in turn hit a pedestrian and injured him. The pedestrian sues the company for damages. (AILET 2016)
Decision:

12. Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Factual Situation: 'A', under the influence of madness, attempts to kill 'B'. 'B' to save his life, kills 'A'. (CLAT 2017)

13. Legal Principle: Whoever takes away with him any minor person less than sixteen years of age if a male, or less than eighteen years of age if a female out of the keeping of parents of such minor person without the consent of such parent, is said to kidnap such minor person.
Factual Situation: A female born on 1st January 1995 got admitted to an undergraduate program of a reputed university on 1st July 2012. She became friendly with one of the boys, born on 1st June 1994, of her class. The boy and the girls decided to marry. The parents of the boy agreed but the family of the girl did not agree. On 15th December 2012, the girl made a call from her Blackberry to the boy. The girl told the boy to come in his car at a particular place and time. The boy reached the stipulated place before the stipulated time. He waited there for about half an hour. The girl reached the stipulated place. She opened the door of the car and sat beside the boy who was on the driving seat. Without exchanging any pleasantries, the boy drove the car to an unknown place. The father of the girls lodged an FIR in the nearest police station on 20th January 2013. (CLAT 2013)

14. Legal Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing the false writing is also considered forgery. I. the case of writing to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actuallynot.
Factual Situation: John was a publisher of ancient books and papers. In one of his books on the World Wars, he gave photograph of some letters written by famous historic personalities. A researcher in history noted that in the pictures of some of the letters printed in the book, John had added some words or sentences in his own handwriting to give completeness to the sentences, so that the readers will get a clear picture of the writer's intention. The researcher challenges the originality of those pictures and claims that the book containing the forged letters should be banned. Examine the validity of the researcher's demand. (CLAT 2017)

15. Legal Principles: (AILET 2019) 1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. 2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, os rima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. 3. Generally, nuisance cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant. Facts: Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive heamodialysis on the floor above the Dr. Hemant's clinic. The Karan was found liable for emitting from their clinic obnoxious fumes which escaped downwards into Hemant's clinic. Hemant his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, ted and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties Decide whether Karan is liable?

16. X, a married woman, agreed to live in adultery with B and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, B agreed to pay X ` 500 per month for living in adultery and ` 500 per month for housekeeping. The agreement is: (CLAT 2012)

17. Legal Principle: Every person shall be liable to punishment under the Indian Penal Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions of the Code of which he shall be guilty within the territory of India. In other words, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction depends upon the locality of the offence committed and not upon the nationality or locality of the offender.
Factual Situation: X, a Pakistani citizen, while staying at Karachi, made false representations to Y, the complainant, in Bombay through letters, telephone calls and telegrams and induced the complainant to part with money amounting to over ` 5 lakhs to the agents of X at Bombay, so that rice could be shipped from Karachi to India as per agreement. But the rice was never supplied to the complainant. (CLAT 2014)

18. Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right. Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan's tuition Centre to Ashutosh's Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh? Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above? (CLAT 2018)

19. Legal Principle: 1. The concept of joint liability comes under Section 341 of IPC which states that 'when a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone'. 2. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. 3. A criminal conspiracy takes place when two or more people get together and plan to commit a crime and then take some action towards carrying out that plan. The action taken does not have to be a crime itself to further the conspiracy.
Factual Situation: X and Y conspire to poison Z. X in pursuance of the conspiracy procures the poison and delivers it to Y in order that he may administer it to Z. Y in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison in the presence of X and thereby causes Z's death. What are offences that X and Y have committed? (AILET 2013)
Decision:

20. Legal Principle: Interference with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner's right, though the doer may not know of, or intend to challenge, the property or possession of the true owner.
Factual Situation: R went to a cyclestand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to S. In fact, R was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S's bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S's bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. S filed a suit against R for conversion. Which of the following derivations is correct? (CLAT 2014)

21. Legal Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.
Factual Situation: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land. (CLAT 2017)

22. Legal Principles: 1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk. 2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. 3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm.
Factual Situation: Amar worked for an iron works, Luxmi Mills & Co. Ltd. operating a remotely controlled crane, Amar galvanized items by dipping them into a large tank of molten metal. In order to protect its crane operators, whose controls were located just a few feet from the tank, Luxmi Mills erected a low wall around the tank and also provided a sheet of corrugated iron that crane operators placed between themselves and the wall. The operators were not facing the tank while operating the crane. Thus, they could not see the operation of the crane and therefore relied upon signals from another worker located farther from the tank. Many other galvanizers at the time situated their operators in enclosed, windowed spaces from which they could safely see and perform their work. Luxmi Mills eventually adopted that practice as well. One day, Amar was working on the crane. At one point, he either turned toward the tank or leaned out to see the worker giving him instructions, thereby placing his head outside the iron sheet. A spray of molten metal burned Amar's lip. When it failed to heal and began to ulcerate, he consulted a doctor who diagnosed the wound as cancerous. Amar ultimately died from the spread of cancer after three years. His widow sued Luxmi Mills for negligence. Whether the employers would be liable for the full extent of the burn and cancer that had developed as a result? (AILET 2018)

23. Legal Principle: Consent is a good defence in a civil action for tort but the act should be the same for which consent was given.
Factual Situation: 'B' was formally invited by 'A' to his house. 'B' after sitting for some time in drawing room, moved to the bed room of the house. 'A' sued 'B' for trespass. (CLAT 2016)

24. Principle: Property can be transferred only by a living person to another living person. Facts: 'A' transfers property of which he is the owner in favor of the unborn child of B. (CLAT 2019)

25. Legal Principles: 1. Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person. 2. The statement must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. 3. A mere vulgar abuse is not defamation. 4. Sometimes a statement may not be defamatory on the face of it but contain an innuendo, which has a defamatory meaning. 5. Defamation encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.
Factual Situation: In May 2017, a memorial commemorating the women of World War II was vandalized during an anti-government demonstration following the General Election. An offensive political slogan was spray painted across the plinth of the memorial. This act caused public outrage and widespread condemnation. On Twitter, a political writer, Asha Mehta said that she did not have a problem with the vandalism of the memorial building. Chandna reacted to this negatively, suggesting that Asha should be sent to join Terrorist Organization. Asha's comments and Chandna's reactions both received national media coverage. A few days later, Chandna published a tweet asking the question “Scrawled on any war memorials recently?” to Anshika Chauhan, another political activist. Anshika Chauhan responded stating that they had never vandalised any memorial building, and moreover had family members serving in the armed forces. Chandna followed with a second tweet, in which she asked if someone could explain the difference between Mehta (an “irritant”) and Anshika Chauhan (whom she described as “social anthrax”). Anshika Chauhan asked for a retraction via Twitter and was promptly blocked by Chandna. Anshika Chauhan asked Chandna to make a public apology and claimed compensation for libel alleging that the First Tweet suggested that she had either vandalised a war memorial, which was a criminal act; and the Second Tweet suggested that she approved or condoned that vandalisation. What is the meaning of the Tweets and whether those meanings had defamatory tendency? (AILET 2018)