Answer the following in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. 10×5=50

(a) "The law of contract is not the whole law of agreements, nor is it the whole law of obligations. It is the law

Question

Answer the following in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. 10×5=50

(a) "The law of contract is not the whole law of agreements, nor is it the whole law of obligations. It is the law of those agreements which create obligations, and those obligations which have their source in agreement" — Salmond. Critically examine this statement. 10

(b) "At the suit of a partner, the court may dissolve a firm on certain grounds specified in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The right of a partner to ask for dissolution on any of the grounds mentioned in the Act cannot be excluded by any agreement to the contrary." Explain. 10

(c) "The parties cannot appeal against an arbitral award as to its merits. But, this does not mean that there is no check on the Arbitrator's conduct. Awards may also be challenged." Critically examine the above statement. 10

(d) "In India, there are different types of Intellectual Property rights, which are protected under different laws." Explain. 10

(e) What kind of cases are heard by the 'National-Green Tribunal' ? How is it different from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) ? 10

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

(a) Scope of the Law of Contract

Salmond's proposition defines contract law through the intersection of agreements and legal obligations. Not all agreements are contracts: social, domestic, or moral agreements do not generate legal obligations due to the absence of an intention to create legal relations (Balfour v. Balfour), while agreements lacking statutory validity under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872—such as agreements by minors (Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose)—remain void ab initio. Conversely, many legal obligations arise entirely outside agreements, including tortious liabilities, criminal duties, fiduciary trusts, and quasi-contractual obligations under Sections 68–72 of the Act, which are created by operation of law rather than mutual consent.

Critically examined, while Salmond accurately restricts contract law to consensual vinculum juris, modern legal developments like promissory estoppel and statutory standard-form contracts dilute purely voluntary assent. Nonetheless, his formulation remains conceptually sound: the law of contract governs solely that territory where voluntary agreement generates enforceable legal obligation.

(b) Judicial Dissolution of a Partnership Firm

Section 44 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 confers statutory power on the court to dissolve a partnership firm at the suit of a partner. The grounds encompass mandatory or incapacity-based events, such as a partner becoming of unsound mind (Section 44(a)) or permanently incapable of performing duties (Section 44(b)), as well as discretionary and conduct-based grounds, including prejudicial misconduct (Section 44(c)), persistent breach of agreement (Section 44(d)), transfer of whole interest to a third party (Section 44(e)), business running at a perpetual loss (Section 44(f)), and the just and equitable clause (Section 44(g)).

The right of a partner to invoke Section 44 cannot be excluded by any contract to the contrary. An agreement ousting the court's jurisdiction to dissolve a partnership is void under public policy and Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Rehmat-un-Nisa Begum v. Price). This non-excludability protects minority partners from being trapped indefinitely in oppressive, deadlocked, or unviable associations.

(c) Finality and Judicial Scrutiny of Arbitral Awards

Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 establishes the finality of arbitral awards. Indian courts cannot sit in appeal over an award to re-appreciate evidence or correct errors of fact on merits (Associate Builders v. DDA). However, this finality is not absolute immunity from judicial control.

The Act provides vital checks under Section 34(2), permitting courts to set aside awards on procedural and structural grounds: incapacity of parties, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, violation of natural justice, disputes exceeding the terms of submission, or improper tribunal composition. Furthermore, awards may be challenged if in conflict with the "public policy of India"—including fundamental policy of Indian law, basic notions of justice, and patent illegality on the face of the record for domestic arbitrations under Section 34(2A). Orders setting aside or refusing to set aside awards are subject to limited appeal under Section 37. Thus, the statutory framework ensures arbitral autonomy while preserving essential judicial oversight against misconduct and illegality.

(d) Spectrum of Intellectual Property Rights in India

India provides a multi-tiered, TRIPS-compliant legislative framework protecting diverse categories of Intellectual Property Rights:

The Patents Act, 1970 protects novel, inventive, and industrially applicable inventions for a term of twenty years. The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematograph films, and computer software. Distinctive brand identifiers and trade marks are safeguarded under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to prevent consumer confusion.

Aesthetic, non-functional visual features of shape, pattern, and configuration applied to articles are protected under the Designs Act, 2000. Goods possessing specific qualities or reputations attributable to their geographical origin receive protection under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Specialised sui generis regimes include the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 for topographies of microchips, and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 alongside the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 for plant varieties and genetic resources.

(e) National Green Tribunal and Central Pollution Control Board

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is a specialised judicial body exercising original civil jurisdiction (Sections 14 and 15) over substantial questions relating to the environment and appellate jurisdiction (Section 16) over administrative orders and environmental clearances. Its jurisdiction spans disputes arising under the seven environmental statutes listed in Schedule I, including the Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981, Environment (Protection) Act 1986, and Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. It possesses plenary powers to award compensation, order restitution of damaged property, and enforce the 'polluter pays' principle.

In contrast, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is an executive regulatory statutory body constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. While CPCB sets emission standards, monitors environmental quality, advises the Central Government, and coordinates State Boards, it lacks judicial authority. The NGT is an adjudicatory tribunal that hears disputes, issues binding decrees, and reviews CPCB's regulatory decisions.

Answer the following in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements…

Model answer

What "Critically examine" is asking you to do

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Practice this exact question

More from Law 2023 Paper II