Law 2023 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q5

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

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए । अपना उत्तर सुसंगत विधिक प्रावधानों और न्यायिक निर्णयों से समर्थित कीजिए । 10×5=50 (a) "संविदा विधि न तो पूर्णतः करारों की विधि है, न ही यह पूर्णतः बाध्यताओं की विधि है । यह ऐसे करारों की वह विधि है जो बाध्यताएँ निर्मित करती हैं एवं उन बाध्यताओं को जिनके स्रोत करार में होते हैं" — सामंड । इस कथन का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । 10 (b) "एक भागीदार के वाद पर भारतीय भागीदारी अधिनियम, 1932 में वर्णित कुछ आधारों पर न्यायालय एक फर्म का विघटन कर सकता है । अधिनियम में उल्लिखित आधारों को एक भागीदार के विघटन के अधिकार पर किसी विपरीत करार द्वारा अपवर्जित नहीं किया जा सकता है ।" व्याख्या कीजिए । 10 (c) "एक माध्यस्थम पंचाट के विरुद्ध पक्षकारों द्वारा उसके गुणागुण पर अपील नहीं की जा सकती है । परन्तु इसका यह अर्थ नहीं है कि माध्यस्थों के आचरण पर कोई नियन्त्रण नहीं है । पंचाटों पर भी चुनौती (आपत्ति) की जा सकती है ।" उपरोक्त कथन का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । 10 (d) "भारत में, विभिन्न प्रकार के बौद्धिक सम्पदा अधिकार हैं, जो विभिन्न विधियों के अन्तर्गत संरक्षित हैं ।" व्याख्या कीजिए । 10 (e) 'राष्ट्रीय-हरित न्यायाधिकरण' किस तरह के मामलों की सुनवाई करता है ? यह केन्द्रीय प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण बोर्ड से किस प्रकार भिन्न है ? 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Law questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Critically examine demands balanced analysis with evaluation of merits and demerits. Allocate ~30 words each across five sub-parts (150 words each): (a) Salmond's definition—contrast agreements vs. contracts, obligations vs. contractual obligations; (b) Section 44 Partnership Act grounds—insanity, misconduct, permanent incapacity with mandatory vs. discretionary dissolution; (c) Section 34 Arbitration Act—no appeal on merits, yet Sections 34 and 37 for setting aside and appeal on limited grounds; (d) enumerate IPR types—Patents Act 1970, Copyright Act 1957, Trade Marks Act 1999, Designs Act 2000, Geographical Indications Act 1999, Semiconductor IC Layout Design Act 2000, Biological Diversity Act 2002; (e) NGT Act 2010 jurisdiction—substantial question relating to environment, Schedule I categories, CPCB as regulatory body vs. NGT as adjudicatory body. Conclude each part with synthesis.

Key points expected

  • (a) Salmond's trichotomy: agreements creating no legal obligations (social/domestic), obligations arising without agreement (tort, quasi-contract, crime), and contractual obligations—cite Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh on enforceability
  • (b) Section 44 Partnership Act: mandatory dissolution grounds (insanity, permanent incapacity—Section 44(a)-(b)) vs. discretionary grounds (misconduct, willful breach, transfer of interest—Section 44(c)-(e)); non-excludability as public policy
  • (c) Arbitration Act 1996: Section 34(2) grounds for setting aside (incapacity, invalid agreement, beyond scope, improper composition, public policy); Section 37 appeal on limited grounds; no appeal on merits per Section 35
  • (d) Seven IPR statutes with specific subject matter: Patents (inventions), Copyright (original works), Trademarks (distinctive signs), Designs (aesthetic features), GI (origin-linked goods), Semiconductor IC Layout, Biodiversity-related knowledge
  • (e) NGT jurisdiction: Section 14, 15, 16—civil cases over Rs.1 crore, appeals from environmental clearance, Schedule I seven statutes; CPCB under Water/ Air Acts—regulatory, standard-setting, enforcement coordination vs. NGT's adjudicatory role

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Contract Act sections (2(h), 10, 25), Partnership Act 1932 Sections 44, 46, Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 34, 35, 37, specific IPR statutes with years, NGT Act 2010 Sections 14-19 and CPCB's statutory mandate under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981General mention of relevant statutes without specific sections or with minor errors in section numbers; conflates similar provisionsIncorrect statute references, confusing Partnership Act with LLP Act 2008, citing repealed 1940 Arbitration Act, or missing statutory basis entirely
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh (minor's agreement), Balfour v. Balfour (domestic agreement); for (c): ONGC v. Saw Pipes (public policy), Ssangyong Engineering (narrow interpretation of public policy); for (e): Kudrat Sandhu v. NGT (jurisdiction), Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (polluter pays)Mention of landmark cases without correct facts or ratio; generic reference to 'Supreme Court held' without case namesNo case law cited, or invented/fabricated case names; citing irrelevant cases like Donoghue v. Stevenson for contract law
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): critical evaluation of Salmond's definition's adequacy in modern law (standard form contracts, e-contracts, promissory estoppel); for (c): analysis of minimal judicial intervention philosophy vs. actual scope of review; for (e): functional separation of powers in environmental governanceDescriptive coverage of doctrines without critical engagement; accepts Salmond's definition uncritically or treats arbitration confidentiality as absoluteNo doctrinal depth, merely reproducing definitions; confusing dissolution with winding up, or treating NGT as appellate body over CPCB
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): comparison with English law (consideration doctrine differences); for (c): contrast with international arbitration regimes (UNCITRAL Model Law); for (e): Article 21 and 48A as constitutional basis for NGT, comparing with specialized tribunals globallyBrief mention of constitutional provisions without elaboration; superficial comparison without legal significanceNo constitutional or comparative dimension; ignoring that NGT is statutory tribunal under Article 323B, not constitutional body
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesized conclusion showing interconnection: how contractual certainty enables commerce, how mandatory dissolution protects vulnerable partners, how limited arbitration review balances finality with fairness, how IPR regime supports innovation policy, how NGT-CPCB separation exemplifies environmental governance architectureSeparate conclusions for each part without thematic unity; repetitive summary of points already madeNo conclusion, or abrupt ending; concluding with personal opinion unsupported by law; exceeding word limit significantly in one part at expense of others

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Law 2023 Paper II