Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
1. A, B, and C are three brothers who constitute a Hindu joint family. B executes a registered release deed in favour of A, relinquishing all his rights and interests in the joint family property for valid consideration. Later, the family executed woman files an FIR under Sections 498A IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws. The High Court, while hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, examines the FIR in detail, compares it with earlier complaints, finds inconsistencies, and concludes that the allegations appear to be an “afterthought.” It then quashes the FIR.
Which of the following statements correctly reflects the law governing the Court's powers at the stage of quashing an FIR under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS? an unregistered written memorandum recording that each brother would henceforth manage separate portions of the property independently.
When a dispute arises years later, the trial court refuses to recognize A's exclusive ownership, holding that the release deed was not “acted upon,” and the memorandum was unregistered and therefore inadmissible.
Which of the following statements correctly reflects the true legal position under Hindu law?
A. The release deed is ineffective until it is acted upon through physical partition.
B. The release deed immediately divests B of his coparcenary interest upon execution, regardless of subsequent implementation.
C. The unregistered memorandum is wholly inadmissible for any purpose.
D. Severance of status can occur only by division of property by metes and bounds.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: P. ANJANAPPA (D) BY LRs VERSUS A.P. NANJUNDAPPA & ORS., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1074
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that a registered relinquishment deed releasing share of a coparcener in the joint family property, operates immediately regardless of its implementation.
2. A woman files an FIR under Sections 498A IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws. The High Court, while hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, examines the FIR in detail, compares it with earlier complaints, finds inconsistencies, and concludes that the allegations appear to be an “afterthought.” It then quashes the FIR.
Which of the following statements correctly reflects the law governing the Court's powers at the stage of quashing an FIR under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS?
(A) The High Court can examine the credibility or reliability of the allegations to prevent misuse of criminal process.
(B) The High Court can conduct a limited inquiry into disputed facts if contradictions are apparent from the record.
(C) The High Court cannot assess the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations in the FIR or complaint, as that would amount to holding a “mini-trial.”
(D) The High Court must quash the FIR if the allegations appear improbable or inconsistent with earlier complaints.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: MUSKAN VERSUS ISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA) AND OTHERS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1080
Explanation: The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore bench order that had quashed an FIR under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, filed by a woman against her husband and his family. The Court criticized the High Court for holding a 'mini-trial' at the quashing stage, going into the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
3. A civil appeal was filed by two defendants against a trial court decree. Before the appeal could be heard, both appellants died. However, their legal heirs were not brought on record, and the appellate court proceeded to deliver judgment in favour of the deceased appellants. Later, the decree-holder sought to execute that appellate judgment.
In this situation, which of the following statements is legally correct under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
A. The appellate judgment is valid under Order XXII Rule 6 CPC, since the death occurred before pronouncement but after filing of appeal.
B. The appellate judgment is a nullity, as it was rendered in favour of deceased parties whose legal heirs were not substituted before hearing.
C. The appellate judgment remains enforceable until specifically set aside by a higher court.
D. The appeal automatically stands transferred to the legal heirs even without formal substitution, if they have a beneficial interest in the outcome.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1067
Explanation: Order XXII Rule 6 CPC saves proceedings only if a party dies after the hearing but before the pronouncement of judgment. If the party dies before the hearing, the appeal abates unless legal heirs are brought on record within the limitation.
4. A person was arrested in connection with a serious road accident case. During the arrest, the police officer orally informed him of the grounds of arrest but did not provide them in writing. The written grounds were furnished to him only when he was produced before the Magistrate for remand. The accused contends that the arrest and remand are illegal as he was not supplied the written grounds of arrest “at the time of arrest.”
Which of the following statements correctly represents the legal position under the Constitution and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023?
A. The arrest is valid as long as the accused was orally informed of the reasons at the time of arrest; there is no requirement of written communication.
B. The arrest is illegal because the written grounds of arrest must be supplied immediately upon arrest, and oral intimation is never sufficient.
C. The arrest is not invalid merely because written grounds were not given at the time of arrest, provided they are furnished within a reasonable time, and at least two hours before the accused is produced before the Magistrate for remand.
D. The Magistrate's remand order cures any illegality in the arrest arising from non-supply of written grounds.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: MIHIR RAJESH SHAH VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066
Explanation: The Supreme Court has clarified that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing, in a language understood by the arrestee, for all offences—whether under the IPC/BNS or special laws. However, in exceptional circumstances, oral communication at the time of arrest is permissible, but written communication must follow within a reasonable time and in any event not later than two hours before the accused is produced before the Magistrate for remand
5. A complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) alleging that certain persons had forged a rent agreement and used it to mislead the High Court. The JMFC, after examining the complaint and verifying that the e-stamp paper was fake, directed the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. The High Court later quashed the FIR, holding that the Magistrate had erred in directing investigation without verifying the truth of the allegations.
As per settled principles under criminal procedure, which of the following statements correctly reflects the law governing the Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) CrPC?
A. The Magistrate can direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC only after satisfying himself about the truth of the allegations made in the complaint.
B. The Magistrate can direct investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC only if the complaint discloses a non-cognizable offence.
C. Once the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may direct the police to register an FIR and investigate, without inquiring into the credibility or truth of the allegations.
D. The Magistrate must first take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 CrPC before ordering registration of an FIR under Section 156(3).
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: SADIQ B. HANCHINMANI VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1064
Explanation: The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision which quashed the FIR, that was registered upon magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Since, the facts alleged in the complaint to the magistrate discloses a commission of a cognizable offence, the Court justified the magistrate's order to direct police investigation, stating that at the pre-cognizance stage the Magistrate only needs to assess whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offense, not whether the allegations are true or substantiated.
6. A files a suit for a permanent injunction against B, seeking to restrain B from interfering with A's peaceful possession over a house. During trial, A admits that B is in actual possession of the property and that A's claim of ownership is based on a disputed Will. A does not seek any declaration of title or recovery of possession in the plaint.
In these circumstances, which of the following statements is legally correct?
A. The suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable because the title can be decided incidentally in an injunction suit.
B. The suit is not maintainable, since when the plaintiff is not in possession and title is disputed, the proper remedy is a declaratory suit with consequential relief for possession.
C. The court should presume that “possession follows title,” hence the injunction must be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
D. The suit is maintainable only if the Will is registered and proved through attesting witnesses.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. Versus D. Rajammal, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1059
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that when the title to the suit property is in dispute and possession rests with the defendant, a mere suit for injunction restraining interference with peaceful enjoyment of the property is not maintainable unless it is accompanied by a suit seeking a declaration of title and consequential recovery of possession. In other words, the Court held that when the plaintiff is not in possession and the defendant claims ownership, the proper remedy is a declaratory suit, not a bare injunction under the Specific Relief Act, 1963
7. A public sector undertaking (PSU) lost an arbitration and the award was upheld up to the Supreme Court. During execution of the award, the PSU files objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, claiming that its own officers had colluded with the opposite party to fix inflated contract prices, and therefore the award was obtained by fraud.
Which of the following statements correctly reflects the legal position regarding such an objection?
A. The executing court can reopen the arbitral award on the ground of fraud and examine the evidence to determine whether the decree is just.
B. Allegations of fraud can be raised at the execution stage, as “fraud unravels everything”, even if the award has attained finality.
C. Objections to execution under Section 47 CPC are maintainable only when the decree is inherently void or passed without jurisdiction, not when fraud is alleged belatedly after the award's finality.
D. The executing court can stay execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC if any new facts emerge after the award, even without jurisdictional defect.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: MMTC LIMITED VERSUS ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PVT. LIMITED, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1060
Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified that execution proceedings cannot be used to reopen or stall enforcement of an arbitral award that has attained finality through judicial confirmation. Under Section 47 CPC, objections are maintainable only when the decree (or award) is void ab initio or passed without jurisdiction. Errors of fact, law, or belated allegations of fraud do not make the decree inexecutive.
8. A entered into a written agreement to sell immovable property to B. The agreement allowed termination by the seller only if the buyer failed to pay the balance amount within six months. After six months, the seller accepted an additional payment from B and continued correspondence regarding completion of sale. However, two months later, the seller issued a notice purporting to “terminate” the agreement for delay. B filed a suit for specific performance of the contract without seeking any declaratory relief against the termination notice.
In light of settled principles under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, what is the correct legal position?
A. The suit is not maintainable unless B first seeks a declaration that the termination notice is invalid, as the contract's termination created a legal cloud over its subsistence.
B. The suit is maintainable only if the termination clause was registered under the Registration Act, 1908
C. The suit is barred because once a termination notice is issued, no court can grant specific performance even if it is wrongful.
D. The suit is maintainable because the seller's acceptance of additional money amounted to waiver of the right to terminate; the purported termination is a wrongful repudiation having no legal existence.
Correct Answer: D
Cause Title: ANNAMALAI VERSUS VASANTHI AND OTHERS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
Explanation: When a contract expressly confers a right to terminate, and that right is validly exercised, a declaration of invalid termination is necessary before seeking specific performance, since a legal “cloud” arises over the contract's subsistence. However, if termination is issued without any contractual right, or if that right has been waived (for instance, by accepting further payment or performing subsequent acts recognizing the contract), then such “termination” is merely a wrongful repudiation. A wrongful repudiation has no legal effect, hence the contract is still subsisting, and the plaintiff can directly seek specific performance without asking for a declaration, the court said.
9. Which of the following scenarios would MOST LIKELY justify a court in dispensing with the pre-litigation mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
(a) A claim for recovery of a long-overdue debt where the defendant has recently sold a major asset.
(b) A suit for trademark infringement where the defendant is continuously using the mark, causing ongoing market confusion and irreparable harm.
(c) A breach of contract claim where the plaintiff seeks damages for a one-time event that occurred six months ago.
(d) A declaratory suit where the plaintiff seeks a judgment on the interpretation of a contract clause.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: NOVENCO BUILDING AND INDUSTRY A/S VERSUS XERO ENERGY ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD. & ANR., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1027
Explanation: The Supreme Court has held that the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be mechanically applied in cases involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, such as trademark violations. The Court observed that insisting on mediation before filing a suit in such situations would effectively leave the plaintiff without a remedy, allowing the infringer to continue profiting under the cover of procedural formalities. The provision, the Court said, was never intended to produce such an “anomalous result.”
10. The Supreme Court has held that investigating officers shall not issue a summons to an advocate representing an accused to know case details, unless it is covered under an exception to Section 132 of the BSA. According to the judgment, which of the following scenarios would likely not be protected by the privilege and could justify a summons?
(a) An advocate is summoned to confirm the time of a meeting they had with their client.
(b) An advocate is asked to disclose a communication from a client seeking advice on how to legally invest a large sum of money.
(c) An advocate is questioned about a fact they observed, which shows that a fraud was committed by the client after the advocate's engagement began.
(d) An advocate is asked to reveal the general legal strategy they discussed with their client.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title : In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues | SMW(Cal) 2/2025, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1051
Explanation: Section 132 BSA explicitly states the privilege under Section 132 is not available for "any fact observed by any advocate, in the course of his service as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his service."