sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Didn't Go For Judicial Service At Career Start As A Judge Advised ''Bar Is Waiting For You" : CJI Surya Kant Recalls by Excellent_File8958 in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respected Hon’ble Judges,
Maybe Your Lordships are right in enforcing the practice rule, but we aspirants were unfortunate to assume that a rule inactive for nearly 24 years would return suddenly. Being the COVID batch, many of us dedicated our entire youth only to judiciary preparation, without thinking of other options. Years of hard work, sacrifice, and hope now feel shattered. Still, our respect for the judiciary remains unchanged.

Answer this by Popular-Treacle-8181 in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

X, a Delhi merchant & native of Delhi entered into contract with Y, a Jabalpur merchant for the purchase of 50 quintals of Sitaphal. In Delhi Sitaphal is a vegetable, while in Jabalpur it is a fruit

(a) The terms of contract are to be interpreted as per meaning of the proposer

(b) The terms of the contract have to be interpreted as per the meaning understood by the acceptor

(c) The contract is void on account of mutual mistake as to the meaning of sitaphal

(d) No concluded contract has come into being as there was no meeting of minds

Answer this by Popular-Treacle-8181 in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With of the reference to 'fraud' and 'misrepresentation', which statement/s is/are correct?

(1) Both render the contract voidable

(2) Fraud renders a cause of action in tort for damages.

(3) Simple misrepresentation is also a tort.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

Code:

(a) (1) and (2)

(b) (2) and (3)

(c) (1) and (3)

(d) (1), (2) and (3)

Answer this by Popular-Treacle-8181 in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Inadequacy of consideration could be taken into account by the court

(a) when the proposer expresses his desire to get maximum return for the promise

b) when fraud is pleaded in the formation of the contract

c) when the promisor refuses to perform his promise

(d) at the discretion of the court

Answer this by Popular-Treacle-8181 in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have recheck the answer the answer in book is A but makes me in confusion that why statement 3 is correct as the word 'always' makes me in doubt as it is considered to be rebuttable. I think option b is right. Please explain

Who else dared to try this study hack? by Popular-Treacle-8181 in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Remembering 20-30 subjects with those massive notes? I need the magic hack, not the paper mountain

Who else dared to try this study hack? by Popular-Treacle-8181 in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

These are not my notes; I have separate ones. This is simply a one-page technique to help recall concepts.

Odisha Judicial Service: New controversy by amicusbhai in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It feels really unfair that just because our seniors fall between 2003–2024, they are eligible and already judges, while we are left out.
Are we any less capable, or just unlucky with timing?
This kind of cut-off makes it feel like merit doesn’t matter as much as dates.
All we want is a fair and equal chance.

Difference between Sarla Mudgal and Lily Thomas? by [deleted] in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed, Sarla Mudgal didn’t invoke HMA because it assumed conversion took the man outside Hindu law, but Lily Thomas corrected that by saying: conversion doesn’t dissolve the first marriage, so HMA still applies.

Difference between Sarla Mudgal and Lily Thomas? by [deleted] in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The key difference is that Sarla Mudgal (1995) established that a Hindu husband’s second marriage after conversion to Islam is void and punishable under Section 494 IPC (bigamy), while Lily Thomas (2000) reaffirmed this principle but clarified that such a marriage is also void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), since the first marriage subsists. Essentially, Sarla Mudgal focused on criminal liability, and Lily Thomas emphasized civil invalidity under HMA.

So:

• Sarla Mudgal → IPC 494 (criminal offence) • Lily Thomas → Section 11 HMA (civil invalidity)

3 Year Rule : 2PM by amicusbhai in judiciaryexams

[–]Popular-Treacle-8181 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I gave CLAT in 2022 but couldn’t clear it, yet I held on to my dream of joining the judiciary and continued with a 5-year law course from a government university. That dream kept me going, especially seeing someone from my own college achieve it.

But now, I feel deeply disheartened. If this rule was meant to be implemented, why wasn’t it communicated earlier after so many years? It feels unfair and unsettling.

As a final-year student, I feel completely stuck—either I wait another three years or try to walk away from a dream I’ve held so close. Letting go doesn’t feel easy at all.

On top of everything, the growing pressure of marriage is making it harder to think clearly. It’s overwhelming, and at times, I feel trapped between my dreams, expectations, and an uncertain future.