UG-CLAT LEGAL REASONING QUIZ 2

Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

Advertising plays a very important role in today’s age of competition. Advertising is one thing that has become a necessity for everybody in today’s day-to-day life, be it the producer, the traders, or the customer. Advertising is an important part. It is the best way to communicate to the customers about the brands available in the market and the variety of products useful to them. But if the advertising involves false, misleading, or deceptive information, it may have an adverse impact on the consumers. According to the section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019- "misleading advertisement" in relation to any product or service, means an advertisement, which—

(i) falsely describes such product or service; or

(ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

(iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or 

(iv) deliberately conceals important information;

Recently, Consumer protection regulator CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) took suo-moto cognizance and passed an order against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Ltd directing it to discontinue all advertisements of Sensodyne products in India for flouting norms. As per the order, the CCPA has directed GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare to discontinue all advertisements for Sensodyne in the country within seven days of the issuance of the order as the ads showed dentists practicing outside India endorsing the products. Given that the regulations governing dentists in India clearly bar endorsement of any product or drug publicly, the CCPA said GSK Consumer Healthcare "cannot be allowed to circumvent the law in force in India and show foreign dentists to exploit consumer apprehension towards tooth sensitivity." "Therefore, advertisement of Sensodyne products in India which show endorsements by dentists practising outside India qualify as 'misleading advertisement' in terms of Section 2 (28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019," the order said. The CCPA has also directed Director General (Investigation) to submit a report within 15 days after probing the claims "Recommended by dentists worldwide", "world's no.1 sensitivity toothpaste" and "clinically proven relief, works in 60 seconds" and the documents submitted by the company in support of these claims. Taking up another suo-moto case, the CCPA passed an order against Naaptol Online Shopping Ltd asking the company to discontinue misleading advertisements of "Set of 2 Gold Jewelry", "Magnetic Knee Support" and "Acupressure Yoga Slippers". The CCPA has also imposed a penalty of Rs 10 lakh on Naaptol.

In GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Ltd matter, Director General (Investigation) has been directed to submit a report probing the claims except………….

Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

Advertising plays a very important role in today’s age of competition. Advertising is one thing that has become a necessity for everybody in today’s day-to-day life, be it the producer, the traders, or the customer. Advertising is an important part. It is the best way to communicate to the customers about the brands available in the market and the variety of products useful to them. But if the advertising involves false, misleading, or deceptive information, it may have an adverse impact on the consumers. According to the section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019- "misleading advertisement" in relation to any product or service, means an advertisement, which—

(i) falsely describes such product or service; or

(ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

(iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or 

(iv) deliberately conceals important information;

Recently, Consumer protection regulator CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) took suo-moto cognizance and passed an order against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Ltd directing it to discontinue all advertisements of Sensodyne products in India for flouting norms. As per the order, the CCPA has directed GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare to discontinue all advertisements for Sensodyne in the country within seven days of the issuance of the order as the ads showed dentists practicing outside India endorsing the products. Given that the regulations governing dentists in India clearly bar endorsement of any product or drug publicly, the CCPA said GSK Consumer Healthcare "cannot be allowed to circumvent the law in force in India and show foreign dentists to exploit consumer apprehension towards tooth sensitivity." "Therefore, advertisement of Sensodyne products in India which show endorsements by dentists practising outside India qualify as 'misleading advertisement' in terms of Section 2 (28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019," the order said. The CCPA has also directed Director General (Investigation) to submit a report within 15 days after probing the claims "Recommended by dentists worldwide", "world's no.1 sensitivity toothpaste" and "clinically proven relief, works in 60 seconds" and the documents submitted by the company in support of these claims. Taking up another suo-moto case, the CCPA passed an order against Naaptol Online Shopping Ltd asking the company to discontinue misleading advertisements of "Set of 2 Gold Jewelry", "Magnetic Knee Support" and "Acupressure Yoga Slippers". The CCPA has also imposed a penalty of Rs 10 lakh on Naaptol.

"Misleading advertisement" in relation to any product or service, doesn’t mean:

Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

Advertising plays a very important role in today’s age of competition. Advertising is one thing that has become a necessity for everybody in today’s day-to-day life, be it the producer, the traders, or the customer. Advertising is an important part. It is the best way to communicate to the customers about the brands available in the market and the variety of products useful to them. But if the advertising involves false, misleading, or deceptive information, it may have an adverse impact on the consumers. According to the section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019- "misleading advertisement" in relation to any product or service, means an advertisement, which—

(i) falsely describes such product or service; or

(ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

(iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or 

(iv) deliberately conceals important information;

Recently, Consumer protection regulator CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) took suo-moto cognizance and passed an order against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Ltd directing it to discontinue all advertisements of Sensodyne products in India for flouting norms. As per the order, the CCPA has directed GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare to discontinue all advertisements for Sensodyne in the country within seven days of the issuance of the order as the ads showed dentists practicing outside India endorsing the products. Given that the regulations governing dentists in India clearly bar endorsement of any product or drug publicly, the CCPA said GSK Consumer Healthcare "cannot be allowed to circumvent the law in force in India and show foreign dentists to exploit consumer apprehension towards tooth sensitivity." "Therefore, advertisement of Sensodyne products in India which show endorsements by dentists practising outside India qualify as 'misleading advertisement' in terms of Section 2 (28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019," the order said. The CCPA has also directed Director General (Investigation) to submit a report within 15 days after probing the claims "Recommended by dentists worldwide", "world's no.1 sensitivity toothpaste" and "clinically proven relief, works in 60 seconds" and the documents submitted by the company in support of these claims. Taking up another suo-moto case, the CCPA passed an order against Naaptol Online Shopping Ltd asking the company to discontinue misleading advertisements of "Set of 2 Gold Jewelry", "Magnetic Knee Support" and "Acupressure Yoga Slippers". The CCPA has also imposed a penalty of Rs 10 lakh on Naaptol.

Which one of the following statements is correct? Give the answer.

Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

Advertising plays a very important role in today’s age of competition. Advertising is one thing that has become a necessity for everybody in today’s day-to-day life, be it the producer, the traders, or the customer. Advertising is an important part. It is the best way to communicate to the customers about the brands available in the market and the variety of products useful to them. But if the advertising involves false, misleading, or deceptive information, it may have an adverse impact on the consumers. According to the section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019- "misleading advertisement" in relation to any product or service, means an advertisement, which—

(i) falsely describes such product or service; or

(ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

(iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or 

(iv) deliberately conceals important information;

Recently, Consumer protection regulator CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) took suo-moto cognizance and passed an order against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Ltd directing it to discontinue all advertisements of Sensodyne products in India for flouting norms. As per the order, the CCPA has directed GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare to discontinue all advertisements for Sensodyne in the country within seven days of the issuance of the order as the ads showed dentists practicing outside India endorsing the products. Given that the regulations governing dentists in India clearly bar endorsement of any product or drug publicly, the CCPA said GSK Consumer Healthcare "cannot be allowed to circumvent the law in force in India and show foreign dentists to exploit consumer apprehension towards tooth sensitivity." "Therefore, advertisement of Sensodyne products in India which show endorsements by dentists practising outside India qualify as 'misleading advertisement' in terms of Section 2 (28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019," the order said. The CCPA has also directed Director General (Investigation) to submit a report within 15 days after probing the claims "Recommended by dentists worldwide", "world's no.1 sensitivity toothpaste" and "clinically proven relief, works in 60 seconds" and the documents submitted by the company in support of these claims. Taking up another suo-moto case, the CCPA passed an order against Naaptol Online Shopping Ltd asking the company to discontinue misleading advertisements of "Set of 2 Gold Jewelry", "Magnetic Knee Support" and "Acupressure Yoga Slippers". The CCPA has also imposed a penalty of Rs 10 lakh on Naaptol.

Why GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Ltd was said to discontinue all advertisements of Sensodyne products in India?

Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

Advertising plays a very important role in today’s age of competition. Advertising is one thing that has become a necessity for everybody in today’s day-to-day life, be it the producer, the traders, or the customer. Advertising is an important part. It is the best way to communicate to the customers about the brands available in the market and the variety of products useful to them. But if the advertising involves false, misleading, or deceptive information, it may have an adverse impact on the consumers. According to the section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019- "misleading advertisement" in relation to any product or service, means an advertisement, which—

(i) falsely describes such product or service; or

(ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

(iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or 

(iv) deliberately conceals important information;

Recently, Consumer protection regulator CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) took suo-moto cognizance and passed an order against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Ltd directing it to discontinue all advertisements of Sensodyne products in India for flouting norms. As per the order, the CCPA has directed GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare to discontinue all advertisements for Sensodyne in the country within seven days of the issuance of the order as the ads showed dentists practicing outside India endorsing the products. Given that the regulations governing dentists in India clearly bar endorsement of any product or drug publicly, the CCPA said GSK Consumer Healthcare "cannot be allowed to circumvent the law in force in India and show foreign dentists to exploit consumer apprehension towards tooth sensitivity." "Therefore, advertisement of Sensodyne products in India which show endorsements by dentists practising outside India qualify as 'misleading advertisement' in terms of Section 2 (28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019," the order said. The CCPA has also directed Director General (Investigation) to submit a report within 15 days after probing the claims "Recommended by dentists worldwide", "world's no.1 sensitivity toothpaste" and "clinically proven relief, works in 60 seconds" and the documents submitted by the company in support of these claims. Taking up another suo-moto case, the CCPA passed an order against Naaptol Online Shopping Ltd asking the company to discontinue misleading advertisements of "Set of 2 Gold Jewelry", "Magnetic Knee Support" and "Acupressure Yoga Slippers". The CCPA has also imposed a penalty of Rs 10 lakh on Naaptol.

Consumer protection regulator CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) took suo-moto cognizance and passed an order against …….

Section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 states under subsection (b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property, and includes—

(i) a natural guardian,

(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor’s father or mother,

(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and

(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any Court of wards.

The sale of minors' property cannot be done without obtaining the court's permission, the Supreme Court held. Quashing the sale of properties of minor daughters by a widow 25 years ago, the apex court said that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, the sale of such property cannot be done without prior permission of the court. "As per clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 8 no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without the previous permission of the court," a bench of S J Mukhopadhyaya and V Gopala Gowda said. "Under sub-section (3) of Section 8, disposal of such an immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section 8, is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him," it said. The court turned down the plea of the mother who justified selling of the property for taking care of her minor daughters and for their livelihood. "In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage, there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question," the bench said. The court passed the order on a petition filed by the daughters, who are now major, challenging the sale deeds of the property which was sold in 1988 by their mother.

Disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section 8, is voidable at the instance of whom?

Section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 states under subsection (b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property, and includes—

(i) a natural guardian,

(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor’s father or mother,

(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and

(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any Court of wards.

The sale of minors' property cannot be done without obtaining the court's permission, the Supreme Court held. Quashing the sale of properties of minor daughters by a widow 25 years ago, the apex court said that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, the sale of such property cannot be done without prior permission of the court. "As per clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 8 no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without the previous permission of the court," a bench of S J Mukhopadhyaya and V Gopala Gowda said. "Under sub-section (3) of Section 8, disposal of such an immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section 8, is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him," it said. The court turned down the plea of the mother who justified selling of the property for taking care of her minor daughters and for their livelihood. "In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage, there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question," the bench said. The court passed the order on a petition filed by the daughters, who are now major, challenging the sale deeds of the property which was sold in 1988 by their mother.

The sale of minors' property cannot be done without obtaining the permission of………..

Section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 states under subsection (b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property, and includes—

(i) a natural guardian,

(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor’s father or mother,

(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and

(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any Court of wards.

The sale of minors' property cannot be done without obtaining the court's permission, the Supreme Court held. Quashing the sale of properties of minor daughters by a widow 25 years ago, the apex court said that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, the sale of such property cannot be done without prior permission of the court. "As per clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 8 no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without the previous permission of the court," a bench of S J Mukhopadhyaya and V Gopala Gowda said. "Under sub-section (3) of Section 8, disposal of such an immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section 8, is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him," it said. The court turned down the plea of the mother who justified selling of the property for taking care of her minor daughters and for their livelihood. "In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage, there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question," the bench said. The court passed the order on a petition filed by the daughters, who are now major, challenging the sale deeds of the property which was sold in 1988 by their mother.

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

Section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 states under subsection (b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property, and includes—

(i) a natural guardian,

(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor’s father or mother,

(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and

(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any Court of wards.

The sale of minors' property cannot be done without obtaining the court's permission, the Supreme Court held. Quashing the sale of properties of minor daughters by a widow 25 years ago, the apex court said that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, the sale of such property cannot be done without prior permission of the court. "As per clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 8 no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without the previous permission of the court," a bench of S J Mukhopadhyaya and V Gopala Gowda said. "Under sub-section (3) of Section 8, disposal of such an immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section 8, is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him," it said. The court turned down the plea of the mother who justified selling of the property for taking care of her minor daughters and for their livelihood. "In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage, there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question," the bench said. The court passed the order on a petition filed by the daughters, who are now major, challenging the sale deeds of the property which was sold in 1988 by their mother.

No immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without the previous permission of the court ……………..

Section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 states under subsection (b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property, and includes—

(i) a natural guardian,

(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor’s father or mother,

(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and

(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any Court of wards.

The sale of minors' property cannot be done without obtaining the court's permission, the Supreme Court held. Quashing the sale of properties of minor daughters by a widow 25 years ago, the apex court said that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, the sale of such property cannot be done without prior permission of the court. "As per clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 8 no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without the previous permission of the court," a bench of S J Mukhopadhyaya and V Gopala Gowda said. "Under sub-section (3) of Section 8, disposal of such an immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section 8, is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him," it said. The court turned down the plea of the mother who justified selling of the property for taking care of her minor daughters and for their livelihood. "In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage, there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question," the bench said. The court passed the order on a petition filed by the daughters, who are now major, challenging the sale deeds of the property which was sold in 1988 by their mother.

According to subsection (b) of section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property is called "guardian". It doesn't include-