How Was the IPCC/PCC Law Paper.....????

my exam ws so so typs.....

yes dear exam was so easy but lenthy as per my concern....................................

Originally posted by : Punit GoSwaMi
	You Can Refer Any book...Its just a matter how u prepare for Exams...and how u r clear in ur concepts.....

yes...very truely said....every book has its own characteristic...all are good...as all give knowledge..thing is how better we grasp it...!!

paper was a difficult... 2 ques out of the syllabus.... Very tricky....

very well said Punit and Prachi...

its just the concept that the Insti wants from us in anyways....

Originally posted by : AJAY PRATAP
	As per my knowledge answers are: 1. a> w is not entitled to get reimbursement. b.i> incorrect b.ii> incorrect c.i> valid c.ii>holding out c.iii>holder for value   2.a> only y is liable as debt taken after 6 months and z didn,t have a knowledge of development. 2.b.i>correct 2.b.ii>incorrect 2.c.i> provisional contracts 2.c.ii>5.0% 2.c.iii>to declare dividends   3. j is liable to pay the bill due to his negligence, as he intend to cancel it, but he didn,t cancel the bill, only torn it and threw it. 4.in both the cases demand for bonus by employees is tenable as psu comes in the mobile business due to competition with private companies. 5.r resignation is invalid. 6. s is not entitled. 7. contention of j is not valid. 8.refusal of payment by company is valid. 9.yes k's objection is right. pls correct me if iam wrong.

i think in the case where income is only 10% of gross income employees are not entitled to claim any bonus whereas they can in the case of 30%.

and in ques 8...company originally is not liable to pay the said amount but the contact with laptop dealer can be ratified by altering its object clause...as it is one of the specified purpose...n the agreement has been entered with in the apparent authority of the company.

plz correct if m wrong.

ya ..above user is correct in respect of EPF question...!!

in case the income is below 20 % of the gross income ..the public sector enterprise shall b out of d purview of POBA 1965..!!

in Company law question...!! i have a different opinion...

first of all d act is ultra vires the company and that is for sure...!! as it is apparent from facts of question...!!

second.., retrospective ratification is not possible in case of MoA ..!!

thus in this case...Doctrine of Constructive Notice shall apply and company's refusal is valid..!!!

'coz MoA is public document and law presumes that every person dealing with the company has the knowledge of rights and powers of the company..!!

correct me if i m wrong..plz

-karan joshi

i traced my answers with  Ajay's answers..

i think its not holding out nut ratifications

also, its not holder for value but a normal holder

guys correct me if i am wrong..

n wher is ankur today....no comments from him...

paper ne to dimag kharab kar diya...it was 2 lenthy

my attempt was 0f 85 marks,papr was damn lenghty,not able 2 complete last ques.

 one mark holder questions answer is holder in due course.

see it combined with negotiable instruments and contract act.

u ll understand the answer.

Mere............toh dimag ka dahi ho gaya............yaar.too.........lengggggggggggggggggthyyyyyyyy............that wasssssssssss

unexpected paper........

Originally posted by : Punit GoSwaMi
	Hiieee frnds...tell me hw was ur law paper today???.....also reply me how many marks you have attempted.......reply.........

 are yaar so tough exam it was tricky too.........just attempting to break up the flow of student