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?

1. The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.
2. The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.
3. The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.
4. 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?

1. The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.
2. The clause relating to jurisdiction is void.
3. The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.
4. 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?

1. The clause relating to jurisdiction is not valid as it is in restraint of legal proceedings.
2. The clause relating to jurisdiction is not valid as the clause is vague and ambiguous.
3. The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as they have not restricted the choice of either party regarding choice of jurisdiction.
4. 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?

1. Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.
2. Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.
3. Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.
4. Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.

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

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

CLAT 2024 Daily Practice Questions: November 2, 2023

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Both (A) and (B).

1. Res judicata is applicable.
2. Res judicata is not applicable.
3. Since the matter relates to livelihood and life of the person, technical rule of res judicata should not be applied.
4. 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.

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

Also read l

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.