13. In which case it was held that the state 14.

14. The Rule of ‘Absolute Liability’ was laid down

government was in position as a bailee in in the case of:
relation of goods seized by its officers and a) M.C. Mehta v Union of India
was, therefore bound to take reasonable care b) Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of
of the seized goods? India [Bhopal Gas Tragedy case]
a) State of Rajasthan v Vidyawati c) Minu B. Mehta v Balakrishna
b) State of Bombay v. Memon Mahomed d) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal v Union of
Haji Hasam India
c) Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v state of UP
a) N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v State of A.P

15. Explain the Concept of Deep Pocket theory. (Max-100 words)

16. Write the defenses available in cases of strict liability and absolute liability. (Max-100 words)
Name:
Roll No.
Signature:
1. Tort committed while performing a duty in
discharge of obligations imposed by law has
been considered:
a) To be a defense in India
b) To be a defense in England
c) To be a defense in England and not India
d) Both (a) and (b)
2. Which article of the Constitution of India
deals with suability of union of India?
a) Article 300
b) Article 301
c) Article 302
d) None of the Above
3. An act done by government servants in
exercise of statutory powers is a defense
a) If the said act is a constitutional act
b) If the said act is in exercise of sovereign
functions
c) If the said act is in exercise of non-
sovereign functions
d) None of the above
4. The distinction between sovereign and non-
sovereign functions of the state was laid
down in
a) Rylands v Fletcher
b) Donoghue v Stevenson
c) M.C. Mehta v Union of India.
d) Peninsular and Oriental steam Navigation
Co. v Secretary of State, India.
5. Which of the following is not a sovereign
function of the state?
a) Administration of Justice
b) Maintenance of Law and order
c) Defense
6. Family relief work. In which of the case it
was laid down that the state should be liable
like just an ordinary employer
a) State of Rajasthan v Vidyawati
b) Rup Ram v State of Punjab
c) Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v state of UP
d) Both (a) & (b)
Test – 1 (TORT)
Date – 24 Sept. 2016
Max. Time – 20 min.
7. In a recent case, the Supreme Court, while
deviating from the ratio of kasturilal’s case,
held that the principle of sovereign immunity
of state will not absolve it from tortuous
liability of its servants, and that the
distinction between sovereign and non-
sovereign functions no longer exists. The
Case is
a) Narendra Rao & co. v State of A.P
b) Rup Ram v State of Punjab
c) Shyam sunder v state of Rajasthan
d) Union of India v Savita Sharma
8. The rule of strict liability implies
a) No-fault liability i.e. the fault or
negligence of the guilty party is
immaterial
b) Liability based on fault
c) State liability
d) Absolute liability
9. The rule of ‘absolute liability’ implies
a) strict liability
b) stricter than strict liability
c) state liability
d) none of the above
10. The rationale of absolute liability is that the
undertakers of hazardous activities
a) if they are at fault.
b) Partially even if they are not at fault
c) regardless of any fault on their part.
d) if they have not taken reasonable care.
11. The rule of strict liability was laid down in
Rylands v Fletcher by
a) Blackburn J. in 1868
b) Lord Atkin in 1635
c) Winfield in 1765
d) Holt, C J. in 1868
12. The “Absolute liability” theory as the basis for
liability in court for industrial injuries was
propounded by
a) Blackburn, J.
b) V. R. Krishna Iyer, J.
c) P. N. Bhagwati, C. J
d) Lord Atkin