All India Management Association (AIMA) 2007 M.B.A Marketing Management Business Law - II - Question Paper
Friday, 01 February 2013 11:30Web
Page 10 of 28
(e) SEBI is empowered to suspend the trading of the stock of Mahesh Industries Ltd., to protect public interests pending enquiry.
( 2 marks)
39. Anil owes Rs.50,000 to Vinod, who took a life insurance policy in the name of Anil for the amount of Rs.50,000 and paid the premium. Suddenly Anil died and Vinod claimed the amount of Rs.50,000 from the insurance company. Which of the subsequent statements is actual in respect of the above situation under the Insurance Act?
(a) Vinod can claim Rs.50,000 from the insurance company as he had taken out the life insurance policy
(b) Vinod can claim Rs.50,000 from the insurance company as Vinod being the creditor has an insurable interest in the life of Anil, his debtor
(c) Only the spouse of Anil can claim Rs.50,000 from the insurance company as she only has an insurable interest
(d) Vinod can claim Rs.50,000 from the insurance company as he had paid the premium on the life insurance policy
(e) Vinod cannot claim Rs.50,000 from the insurance company but he can recover his dues in preference of other dues from the legal heirs of Vinod.
( 2 marks)
40. A bill was drawn by Pramod upon Satish. Later, Pramod indorsed the bill by signing his name and adding a direction to pay the amount mentioned in the instrument to the order of Mukesh. Such an indorsement under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is known as
(a) Restrictive indorsement
(b) Conditional indorsement
(c) Special indorsement
(d) Blank indorsement
(e) General indorsement.
( 2 marks)
41. Radhika purchased a bottle of floor cleaning liquid manufactured and marketed by Alchemy Chemicals Ltd. The bottle did not carry any warning tags or instructions for its use, due to which Radhika was prevented from taking proper safety precautions and she was injured while cleaning the floor of her house with the cleaning liquid. Which of the subsequent statements is actual in respect of product liability claim that can be brought by Radhika against Alchemy Chemicals Ltd.?
(a) Radhika cannot bring a product liability claim as there was no defect in the efficacy of the cleaning liquid in cleaning the floors
(b) Radhika can bring a product liability claim as the cleaning liquid was not fit for use by human beings
(c) Radhika can bring a product liability claim alleging manufacturing defect in the cleaning liquid due to which she was injured
(d) Radhika can bring a product liability claim alleging design defect in the cleaning liquid due to which she was injured
| Earning: Approval pending. |
