Name Roll No Subject Subject Code Center Code Course

Harpreet Singh 521130797 Legal Aspects of Business MB0051 1683 MBA th Se!ester

Q1. What are the sources of Indian law? Discuss any one im ortant source of law and justify why it is im ortant. !ns" Man" reno#ne$ %urists ha&e atte!pte$ to gi&e a precise $efinition of La#' La#( in the )roa$est an$ !ost co!plete sense !eans a set of regulations an$ rules an$ a set of protot"pe of $ee$s to #hich e&er" in$i&i$ual of the societ" has to )e con&entional to' Another often *uote$( although not #i$el" )elie&e$( $efinition of La# is of that gi&en )" Austin accor$ing to #hich La# is the co!!an$ of the +so&ereign,' Sources of -n$ian la# !a" )e categori.e$ into Legal an$ Historical sources in a$$ition to /or!al an$ 0on1 for!al sources' Legal sources are those #hich are accepte$ as such )" la# itself' Historical sources are those sources !issing for!al recognition )" la#' 2he legal sources of la# are co!!an$ing an$ are per!issi)le )" the la# courts as of right' 2he historical sources of la# are unauthoritati&e' 2he" persua$e co!parati&el" co!prehensi&e course of legal a$&ance!ent' All rules of la# ha&e historical sources )ut not all of the! ha&e legal sources' #ormal Sources of law are3 1' Legislation 2' 4rece$ents 3' 2reaties Non$#ormal Sources of law are 1' 5usto!s 2' 6*uit" %recedent" 7elating to the la# of prece$ents( the concept of stare decisis relates to the )in$ing nature of an earlier $ecision o&er a su)se*uent court calle$ upon to $eci$e o&er a si!ilar issue' Stare 8ecisis operates at t#o le&els3 1' Bin$ing prece$ent 9or !an$ator" authorit":; an$ 2' 4ersuasi&e prece$ent Binding precedent is #hen a si!ilar !atter has )een $eci$e$ upon )" a superior court( a %unior or su)or$inate court is re*uire$ to follo# the ruling' Persuasive precedent is #hen a si!ilar !atter has )een $eci$e$ )" a $ifferent )ench of the sa!e court( or a court of the sa!e ran< or %unior = su)or$inate court' Q&. What is a contract? Which test would you a ly to ascertain whether an a'reement is a contract?

!ns" A contract is an agree!ent ha&ing a la#ful o)%ect entere$ into &oluntaril" )" t#o or !ore parties( each of #ho! inten$s to create one or !ore legal o)ligations )et#een the!' 2he ele!ents of a contract are >offer> an$ >acceptance> )" >co!petent persons> ha&ing legal capacit" #ho e?changes >consi$eration> to create >!utualit" of o)ligation'>

-n or$er for a contract to )e for!e$( the parties !ust reach !utual assent' 2his is t"picall" reache$ through offer an$ an acceptance #hich $oes not &ar" the offer@s ter!s( #hich is <no#n as the >!irror i!age rule>' -f a purporte$ acceptance $oes &ar" the ter!s of an offer( it is not an acceptance )ut a counteroffer an$( therefore( si!ultaneousl" a re%ection of the original offer' 4roof of so!e or all of these ele!ents !a" )e $one in #riting( though contracts !a" )e !a$e entirel" orall" or )" con$uct' 2he re!e$" for )reach of contract can )e >$a!ages> in the for! of co!pensation of !one" or specific perfor!ance enforce$ through an in%unction' Both of these re!e$ies a#ar$ the part" at loss the >)enefit of the )argain> or e?pectation $a!ages( #hich are greater than !ere reliance $a!ages( as in pro!issor" estoppel' 2he parties !a" )e natural persons or %uristic persons' A contract is a legall" enforcea)le pro!ise or un$erta<ing that so!ething #ill or #ill not occur' 2he #or$ pro!ise can )e use$ as a legal s"non"! for contract( although care is re*uire$ as a pro!ise !a" not ha&e the full stan$ing of a contract( as #hen it is an agree!ent #ithout consi$eration' Q(. Write short notes on" !) !'ent and a'ency *) *ailor and bailee !ns" !'ents and a'ency Agent is person #ho perfor!s ser&ices for another person un$er an e?press or i!plie$ agree!ent an$ #ho is su)%ect to the other@s control or right to control the !anner an$ !eans of perfor!ing the ser&ices' 2he other person is calle$ a principal' Ane !a" )e an agent #ithout recei&ing co!pensation for ser&ices' 2he agenc" agree!ent !a" )e oral or #ritten' 92: 2he person to #ho! a po#er of attorne" is gi&en' An agent has authorit" to act on )ehalf of the grantor( as specifie$ )" the grantor in a po#er of attorne" $ocu!ent' Agenc" is an agree!ent( e?press( or i!plie$( )" #hich one of the parties( calle$ the principal( confi$es to the other( $eno!inate$ the agent( the !anage!ent of so!e )usiness; to )e transacte$ in his na!e( or on his account( an$ )" #hich the agent assu!es to $o the )usiness an$ to ren$er an account of it' As a general rule( #hate&er a !an $oes )" hi!self( e?cept in &irtue of a $elegate$ authorit"( he !a" $o )" an agent' Bhen the agenc" is e?press( it is create$ either )" $ee$ or in #riting not )" $ee$( or &er)all" #ithout #riting' Bhen the agenc" is not e?press( it !a" )e inferre$ fro! the relation of the parties an$ the nature of the e!plo"!ent #ithout an" proof of an" e?press appoint!ent' 2he agenc" !ust )e antece$ent gi&en( or su)se*uentl" a$opte$; an$ in the latter case there !ust )e an act of recognition( or an ac*uiescence in the act of the agent( fro! #hich a recognition !a" )e fairl" i!plie$' *ailor and *ailee Bailor is an in$i&i$ual #ho te!poraril" relin*uishes possession )ut not o#nership of a goo$ or other propert" un$er a )ail!ent' 2he )ailor entrusts the possession of the goo$ or propert" to another in$i&i$ual( <no#n as the )ailee' A )ail!ent is usuall" a contractual agree!ent )et#een the )ailor an$ the )ailee that specifies the ter!s an$ purpose of the change in possession' A )ailor=)ailee relationship can )e illustrate$ in the !anage!ent of in&est!ent portfolios' A )ailor can $esignate a )ailee to super&ise an in&est!ent portfolio for a particular ti!e perio$' Bhile the )ailee $oes not o#n the portfolio( the )ailor entrusts the chosen in$i&i$ual to ensure that the portfolio is in goo$ han$s until such ti!e that the )ailor can or #ishes to resu!e the $uties of !anaging the portfolio'

Q+. What is the meanin' of dissolution of firm? Is it different from dissolution of artnershi ? !ns" Bhen the relation )et#een all the partners of the fir! co!es to an en$( this is calle$ $issolution of the fir!' Section 39 of the -n$ian 4artnership Act( pro&i$es that Cthe $issolution of the partnership )et#een all the

partners of a fir! is calle$ the $issolution of a fir!'D -t i!plies the co!plete )rea< $o#n of the relation of partnership )et#een all the partners' Dissolution of artnershi is different from the dissolution of firm. 8issolution of a partnership fir! !erel" in&ol&es a change in the relation of partners; #hereas the $issolution of fir! a!ounts to a co!plete closure of the )usiness' Bhen an" of the partners $ies( retires or )eco!e insol&ent )ut if the re!aining partners still agree to continue the )usiness of the partnership fir!( then it is $issolution of partnership not the $issolution of fir!' 8issolution of partnership changes the !utual relations of the partners' But in case of $issolution of fir!( all the relations an$ the )usiness of the fir! co!es to an en$' An $issolution of the fir!( the )usiness of the fir! ceases to e?ist since its affairs are #oul$ up )" selling the assets an$ )" pa"ing the lia)ilities an$ $ischarging the clai!s of the partners' 2he $issolution of partnership a!ong all partners of a fir! is calle$ $issolution of the fir!' 8issolution of a 4artnership fir! !a" )e affecte$ in the follo#ing #a"s3

Dissolution without the intervention of the Court. Dissolution by Court.

Q,. What do you mean by ne'otiable instruments? -. lain the difference between bill of e.chan'e and romissory note. !ns" A negotia)le instru!ent is a $ocu!ent #hich inclu$es a pro!ise to pa" a set su! of !one" to the )earer of the $ocu!ent either on $e!an$ or on a gi&en $ate' 2he instru!ent can )e freel" transferre$ #ithout the nee$ to notif" the person fro! #ho! it originate$' 0egotia)le instru!ents are use$ to ena)le tra$e( )ecause #ithout the!( people #oul$ )e o)lige$ to e?change !one" in person for all sorts of transactions( an$ this #oul$ *uic<l" )eco!e unsafe in a$$ition to un#iel$"' Ane si!ple e?a!ple of a negotia)le instru!ent is a chec<' A chec< is #ritten out to the )earer for a specific a!ount' 2he )earer can ta<e the chec< to a )an< an$ $eposit it( there)" transferring the o)ligation to the )an<' 2he )earer can also sign the chec< o&er to so!eone else( another e?a!ple of a transfer' 5hec<s also $e!onstrate another i!portant propert" of negotia)le instru!ents( #hich is that people nee$ to ha&e the! in han$ to re$ee! or negotiate the!' -f the $ocu!ent is lost( it cannot )e calle$ upon' 2he follo#ing are the points of $istinction )et#een a pro!issor" note an$ a )ill of e?change3

2here are three parties to a )ill of e?change( na!el"( the $ra#er( the $ra#ee an$ the pa"ee( #hile in a pro!issor" note there are onl" t#o parties 1 !a<er an$ pa"ee' -n a )ill of e?change there is an uncon$itional or$er to pa"( #hile in a pro!issor" note there is an uncon$itional pro!ise to pa"' A )ill of e?change re*uires an acceptance of the $ra#ee )efore it is presente$ for pa"!ent( #hile a pro!issor" note $oes not re*uire an" acceptance since it is signe$ )" the person #ho is lia)le to pa"' 2he lia)ilit" of a !a<er of a )ill of e?change is pri!ar" an$ #hile the lia)ilit" of a $ra#er of a )ill of e?change is secon$ar" an$ con$itional' -t arises onl" #hen the $ra#ee fails to pa" that the $ra#er #oul$ )e lia)le as a suret"' A )ill of e?change can )e $ra#n in sets; )ut pro!issor" note cannot )e $ra#n in sets'

Q/. Discuss the ro0isions of Ri'ht to information act1 &22, and information technolo'y act1 &222. !ns" 2he 7ight to -nfor!ation Act 2005 972-: is an Act of the 4arlia!ent of -n$ia >to pro&i$e for setting out the practical regi!e of right to infor!ation for citi.ens'> 2he Act applies to all States an$ Enion 2erritories of -n$ia e?cept the State of Fa!!u an$ Gash!ir' Fa!!u an$ Gash!ir has its o#n act calle$ Fa!!u H Gash!ir 7ight to -nfor!ation Act( 2009' En$er the pro&isions of the Act( an" citi.en !a" re*uest infor!ation fro! a >pu)lic authorit"> 9a )o$" of Io&ern!ent or >instru!entalit" of State>: #hich is re*uire$ to repl" e?pe$itiousl" or #ithin thirt" $a"s' 2he Act also re*uires e&er" pu)lic authorit" to co!puteri.e their recor$s for #i$e $isse!ination an$ to pro1acti&el" pu)lish certain categories of infor!ation so that the citi.ens nee$ !ini!u! recourse to re*uest for infor!ation for!all"' 2his la# #as passe$ )" 4arlia!ent on 15 Fune 2005 an$ ca!e full" into force on 12 Acto)er 2005' -nfor!ation $isclosure in -n$ia #as hitherto restricte$ )" the Afficial Secrets Act 1923 an$ &arious other special la#s( #hich the ne# 72- Act no# rela?es'

2he -nfor!ation 2echnolog" Act 2000 9also <no#n as -2A12000( or the -2 Act: is an Act of the -n$ian 4arlia!ent 90o 21 of 2000: notifie$ on Acto)er 17( 2000' 2his act is )eing oppose$ )" Sa&e Jour Koice ca!paign an$ other ci&il societ" organi.ations in -n$ia' -nfor!ation technolog" Act 2000 consiste$ of 9 sections segregate$ into 13 chapters' /our sche$ules for! part of the Act' -n the 2008 &ersion of the Act( there are 12 sections 9e?clu$ing 5 sections that ha&e )een o!itte$ fro! the earlier &ersion: an$ 1 chapters' Sche$ule - an$ -- ha&e )een replace$' Sche$ules --- an$ -K are $elete$' -nfor!ation 2echnolog" Act 2000 a$$resse$ the follo#ing issues3 1' 2' 3' ' Legal 7ecognition of 6lectronic 8ocu!ents Legal 7ecognition of 8igital Signatures Affenses an$ 5ontra&entions Fustice 8ispensation S"ste!s for 5")ercri!es