CLAT 2024 Daily Practice Questions November 2023

Updated On: November 03, 2023 11:37 pm IST

CLAT 2024 Daily Practice Questions for November 2023 has been shared below. These questions have been shared from previous years' question papers.

CLAT 2024 Daily Practice Questions November 2023

CLAT 2024 Daily Practice Questions 2023: The exam is scheduled to be conducted on December 3, 2023 this year. With only a month left to prepare for the CLAT 2024 examination, the students must practice on sample questions from previous years. The CLAT 2024 Question Paper Pattern consists of four sections i.e. English language, Legal Reasoning, Logical Reasoning, and General Studies. Check the Daily Practice Questions for CLAT 2024 exam from various sections here.

CLAT 2024 Daily Practice Questions: November 1, 2023

This series contains questions from the Legal reasoning section that will help to gain confidence in the upcoming examination.

It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -

(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or

(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, fromany liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.

Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.

Question 1. ‘A’, a resident of Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice betweenthe two proper places of jurisdiction- Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.
The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.
The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.
The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.

Question 2. ‘A’, a resident of Chennai, and ‘B’, a resident of Bengaluru, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Chennai and partly in Bengaluru. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Chennai would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction- Chennai and Bengaluru. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.
The clause relating to jurisdiction is void.
The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.
The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as courts in Chennai have jurisdiction to decidthe dispute.

Question 3. ‘A’, a resident of Agra, and ‘B’, a resident of Bhubaneswar, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Agra and partly in Bhubaneswar. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, neither of them can approach the court of law or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

The clause relating to jurisdiction is not valid as it is in restraint of legal proceedings.
The clause relating to jurisdiction is not valid as the clause is vague and ambiguous.
The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as they have not restricted the choice of either party regarding choice of jurisdiction.
The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as no court’s has been ousted by the clause.

Question 4. ‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contract, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ after the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.
Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.
Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.
Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.

Question 5. According to the given passage, which of the following statements is true?

Parties cannot by contract choose jurisdiction.
Parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts.
Parties can by contract confer jurisdiction on any court.
Parties can by contract extinguish their rights under any contract.

CLAT 2024 Daily Practice Questions: November 2, 2023

The doctrine of res judicata requires that a party should not be allowed to file same matter repeatedly against the other party either in the same court or in other competent court and that the decision given by one court should be accepted as final subject to any appeal, revision or review. The doctrine is founded on the principle that it is in the interest of the public at large that finality should be attached to the binding decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. This apart, the object of the doctrine is to ensure that ultimately there should be an end to litigation. Doctrine of res judicata is embodied in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which governs the procedure to be followed in civil matters. Section 11 is inapplicable to writ jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has observed that though the rule is technical in nature yet the general doctrine of res judicata is based on public policy and therefore, it cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even in dealing with fundamental rights in petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that if a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is considered on merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed in appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution of India. It would not be open to a party to ignore the judgment of the High Court and move Supreme Court under Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed but not on the merits, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, however if the petition is dismissed without passing a speaking order, then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata.

Question 1. Which of the following is res judicata applicable to?

Civil suits
Writ petitions
None of the above.
Both (A) and (B).

Question 2. Doctrine of res judicata is applicable to writs if

The decision is on merits.
Order is a speaking order.
Both (A) and (B).
Neither (A) nor (B).

Question 3. On which of the following is the doctrine of res judicata based?

No one should be vexed twice for the same cause more than once.
It is in the interest of public that finality should be attached to the decisions of courts.
There should be an end to litigation.
All of these.

Question 4. Which of the following is correct?

If a writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is rejected on merits by a speaking order, another petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable being barred by res judicata.
The doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principle that it is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should be attached to the binding decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction.
Technical rule of res judicata only prevents multiple filing of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India between same parties over the same matter and is not applicable to petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Both (A) and (B).

Question 5. Mr. X was dismissed from service by his employer after a proper enquiry. Mr. X challenged his dismissal in High Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the High Court dismissed the petition citing that Mr. X has an alternative remedy available. Mr. X took recourse to the alternative remedy before the appropriate forum, but Mr. X’s legal action is opposed by the employer on the basis of res judicata. Based on these facts, which of the following is the most appropriate?

Res judicata is applicable.
Res judicata is not applicable.
Since the matter relates to livelihood and life of the person, technical rule of res judicata should not be applied.
Both (B) and (C).

CLAT 2024 Daily Practice Questions: November 3, 2023

This series contains questions from the Legal reasoning section that will help to gain confidence in the upcoming examination.
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment which is a way of providing employment to the family of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times and, thus, its relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner. Thus, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

Question 1. Which of the following correctly states the intent behind the application of compassionate appointment?

The norms, at the time of death of the government employee will be applicable and not the norms at the time of making an application.
A dependent of a government employee cannot demand consideration of his/her application.
The norms of the governmental or public authorities are not considered while applying for compassionate appointment.
The norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.

Question 2. Which of the following is not correct about the rule of compassionate appointment?

Compassionate appointment is given to the family members of the deceased irrespective of their financial status.
It is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family members after the death of earning member of the family.
Compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of vested right.
Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules and regulations issued by the government or a public authority.

Question 3. Mr. Y, son of Mr. X, made a representation before ABC government company on January 4, 2018 that he should be given appointment on compassionate grounds as his father died during his employment in the company in 2000. Consider the given facts and decide whether Mr. Y is entitled to get compassionate appointment.

Mr. Y is entitled to get compassionate appointment.
Mr. Y is not entitled for compassionate appointment as a long period has elapsed since the death of his father.
Mr. Y is entitled to get compassionate appointment depending on policy of the company in which his father was working.
Mr. Y is not entitled to get compassionate appointment as it is the discretion of the company to refuse the said appointment.

Question 4. The Government of ‘N’ formulated a scheme for providing compassionate appointment to the dependants of government servants who retired on medical invalidation. By a further notification, the benefit of the scheme was restricted to cases where the government servants retired on medical invalidation, at least five years before attaining the age of superannuation. Consider the given facts, and decide which of the following is correct in relation to the validity of this rule of compassionate appointment?

The scheme is valid subject to the approval of the dependents.
The scheme is not valid as the offer of compassionate appointment to the dependent of a government servant who is medically invalidated is not an exception to the general rule.
The scheme is not valid as it is unconstitutional.
The scheme is valid as it is not arbitrary and the government has the right to formulate such rules.

Question 5. Which of the following is not correct regarding the nature of appointment on compassionate grounds?

A request for compassionate appointment by the dependent relatives of the deceased must be preferred without any undue delay.
The general rule of appointment may not be always applicable to compassionate appointments.
The immediacy of the need is not the basis for the state to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment.
It is a benefit given to the family members at the time of distress.

Also read l

CLAT 2023 Question Paper	CLAT 2021 Question Paper
CLAT 2022 Question Paper	CLAT 2020 Question Paper

Stay tuned to CollegeDekho for more Education News pertaining to entrance exams, boards, and admission. You can also write to us at our E-Mail ID news@collegedekho.com.