send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
In a suit instituted by A, B and C jointly for an injunction against D, E and F, it is alleged that all three defendants, as officers of several associations of workman, conspired to prevent all persons, not belonging to the associations, from obtaining employment in place of the members of the associations. To constitute the overt acts alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, it is averred that D, E and F caused A, B and C to be molested, that E used threatening language to A, and that F assaulted C. It is proved that D was not a party to the conspiracy. A, B and C may join in the suit, notwithstanding that an injunction is granted against E and F only because:
The claim has arisen out of the same series of transactions
It involves the common question of fact and law whether the overt acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
Both (A) and (B)
None of these
- Option 1: The claim has arisen out of the same series of transactions: This suggests that all claims are connected by a series of related events. Despite evidence against D, the actions of E and F are part of the same series of incidents, allowing the plaintiffs to join in the suit.
- Option 2: It involves the common question of fact and law whether the overt acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy: Here, the focus is on whether the actions of E and F were intended to further the conspiracy, which presents a commonality in legal and factual issues.
- Option 3: Both (A) and (B): This option combines both the series of transactions and common legal questions, justifying the joint suit. It recognizes the interconnectedness and shared legal questions among the claims.
- Option 4: None of these: This would suggest that neither of the previous options apply, which is inaccurate given the context.
Option 3: Both (A) and (B) is correct.
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses