CLAT 2021 || Passage Based Current Affairs Quiz || 01.07.2020

Apart from the devastating impact that COVID-19 continues to unleash on human beings and countries worldwide, its outreach has also reached commerce and business. COVID-19 has resulted in lockdowns or restricted movements in countries.
Consequently, businesses have been impacted and so have operations and consequently contracts and obligations under contracts are being revisited to assess these impacts. The term that has assumed relevance in contractual context today for businesses toda y and heard most often is “force majeure” and how will this term be construed in a contract in the background of COVID-19.
We have, through these questions and answers endeavored to demystify the concept of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”, the importance of the same in businesses, the difference between the two, key aspects that one may wish to keep in mind while drafting a force majeure clause and the repercussions of COVID-19 on contracts in India in light of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”
From a contractual perspective, a force majeure clause provides temporary reprieve to a party from performing its obligations under a contract upon occurrence of a force majeure event.
A force majeure clause typically spells out specific circumstances or events, which would qualify as force majeure events, conditions which would have be fulfilled for such force majeure clause to apply to the contract and the consequences of occurrence of such force majeure event. As such, for a force majeure clause to become applicable (should any force majeure event occur), the occurrence of such events should be beyond control of the parties and the parties will be required to demonstrate that they have made attempts to mitigate the impact of such force majeure event. If an event or circumstance comes within the ambit of a force majeure event and fulfils the conditions for applicability of the clause then the consequence would be that parties would be relieved from performing their respective obligations to be undertaken by them under the contract during the period that such force majeure events continue. Further consequential liabilities, depending on the language of the clause, the parties maybe required to issue a notice formally intimating the other party of the occurrence of such event and invocation of the force majeure clause. Some contracts also contain a provision that if such force majeure event continues for a prolonged time period, the parties may be permitted to terminate the contract.

Apart from the devastating impact that COVID-19 continues to unleash on human beings and countries worldwide, its outreach has also reached commerce and business. COVID-19 has resulted in lockdowns or restricted movements in countries.
Consequently, businesses have been impacted and so have operations and consequently contracts and obligations under contracts are being revisited to assess these impacts. The term that has assumed relevance in contractual context today for businesses toda y and heard most often is “force majeure” and how will this term be construed in a contract in the background of COVID-19.
We have, through these questions and answers endeavored to demystify the concept of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”, the importance of the same in businesses, the difference between the two, key aspects that one may wish to keep in mind while drafting a force majeure clause and the repercussions of COVID-19 on contracts in India in light of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”
From a contractual perspective, a force majeure clause provides temporary reprieve to a party from performing its obligations under a contract upon occurrence of a force majeure event.
A force majeure clause typically spells out specific circumstances or events, which would qualify as force majeure events, conditions which would have be fulfilled for such force majeure clause to apply to the contract and the consequences of occurrence of such force majeure event. As such, for a force majeure clause to become applicable (should any force majeure event occur), the occurrence of such events should be beyond control of the parties and the parties will be required to demonstrate that they have made attempts to mitigate the impact of such force majeure event. If an event or circumstance comes within the ambit of a force majeure event and fulfils the conditions for applicability of the clause then the consequence would be that parties would be relieved from performing their respective obligations to be undertaken by them under the contract during the period that such force majeure events continue. Further consequential liabilities, depending on the language of the clause, the parties maybe required to issue a notice formally intimating the other party of the occurrence of such event and invocation of the force majeure clause. Some contracts also contain a provision that if such force majeure event continues for a prolonged time period, the parties may be permitted to terminate the contract.

Apart from the devastating impact that COVID-19 continues to unleash on human beings and countries worldwide, its outreach has also reached commerce and business. COVID-19 has resulted in lockdowns or restricted movements in countries.
Consequently, businesses have been impacted and so have operations and consequently contracts and obligations under contracts are being revisited to assess these impacts. The term that has assumed relevance in contractual context today for businesses toda y and heard most often is “force majeure” and how will this term be construed in a contract in the background of COVID-19.
We have, through these questions and answers endeavored to demystify the concept of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”, the importance of the same in businesses, the difference between the two, key aspects that one may wish to keep in mind while drafting a force majeure clause and the repercussions of COVID-19 on contracts in India in light of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”
From a contractual perspective, a force majeure clause provides temporary reprieve to a party from performing its obligations under a contract upon occurrence of a force majeure event.
A force majeure clause typically spells out specific circumstances or events, which would qualify as force majeure events, conditions which would have be fulfilled for such force majeure clause to apply to the contract and the consequences of occurrence of such force majeure event. As such, for a force majeure clause to become applicable (should any force majeure event occur), the occurrence of such events should be beyond control of the parties and the parties will be required to demonstrate that they have made attempts to mitigate the impact of such force majeure event. If an event or circumstance comes within the ambit of a force majeure event and fulfils the conditions for applicability of the clause then the consequence would be that parties would be relieved from performing their respective obligations to be undertaken by them under the contract during the period that such force majeure events continue. Further consequential liabilities, depending on the language of the clause, the parties maybe required to issue a notice formally intimating the other party of the occurrence of such event and invocation of the force majeure clause. Some contracts also contain a provision that if such force majeure event continues for a prolonged time period, the parties may be permitted to terminate the contract.

Apart from the devastating impact that COVID-19 continues to unleash on human beings and countries worldwide, its outreach has also reached commerce and business. COVID-19 has resulted in lockdowns or restricted movements in countries.
Consequently, businesses have been impacted and so have operations and consequently contracts and obligations under contracts are being revisited to assess these impacts. The term that has assumed relevance in contractual context today for businesses toda y and heard most often is “force majeure” and how will this term be construed in a contract in the background of COVID-19.
We have, through these questions and answers endeavored to demystify the concept of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”, the importance of the same in businesses, the difference between the two, key aspects that one may wish to keep in mind while drafting a force majeure clause and the repercussions of COVID-19 on contracts in India in light of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”
From a contractual perspective, a force majeure clause provides temporary reprieve to a party from performing its obligations under a contract upon occurrence of a force majeure event.
A force majeure clause typically spells out specific circumstances or events, which would qualify as force majeure events, conditions which would have be fulfilled for such force majeure clause to apply to the contract and the consequences of occurrence of such force majeure event. As such, for a force majeure clause to become applicable (should any force majeure event occur), the occurrence of such events should be beyond control of the parties and the parties will be required to demonstrate that they have made attempts to mitigate the impact of such force majeure event. If an event or circumstance comes within the ambit of a force majeure event and fulfils the conditions for applicability of the clause then the consequence would be that parties would be relieved from performing their respective obligations to be undertaken by them under the contract during the period that such force majeure events continue. Further consequential liabilities, depending on the language of the clause, the parties maybe required to issue a notice formally intimating the other party of the occurrence of such event and invocation of the force majeure clause. Some contracts also contain a provision that if such force majeure event continues for a prolonged time period, the parties may be permitted to terminate the contract.

Apart from the devastating impact that COVID-19 continues to unleash on human beings and countries worldwide, its outreach has also reached commerce and business. COVID-19 has resulted in lockdowns or restricted movements in countries.
Consequently, businesses have been impacted and so have operations and consequently contracts and obligations under contracts are being revisited to assess these impacts. The term that has assumed relevance in contractual context today for businesses toda y and heard most often is “force majeure” and how will this term be construed in a contract in the background of COVID-19.
We have, through these questions and answers endeavored to demystify the concept of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”, the importance of the same in businesses, the difference between the two, key aspects that one may wish to keep in mind while drafting a force majeure clause and the repercussions of COVID-19 on contracts in India in light of “force majeure” and “frustration of a contract”
From a contractual perspective, a force majeure clause provides temporary reprieve to a party from performing its obligations under a contract upon occurrence of a force majeure event.
A force majeure clause typically spells out specific circumstances or events, which would qualify as force majeure events, conditions which would have be fulfilled for such force majeure clause to apply to the contract and the consequences of occurrence of such force majeure event. As such, for a force majeure clause to become applicable (should any force majeure event occur), the occurrence of such events should be beyond control of the parties and the parties will be required to demonstrate that they have made attempts to mitigate the impact of such force majeure event. If an event or circumstance comes within the ambit of a force majeure event and fulfils the conditions for applicability of the clause then the consequence would be that parties would be relieved from performing their respective obligations to be undertaken by them under the contract during the period that such force majeure events continue. Further consequential liabilities, depending on the language of the clause, the parties maybe required to issue a notice formally intimating the other party of the occurrence of such event and invocation of the force majeure clause. Some contracts also contain a provision that if such force majeure event continues for a prolonged time period, the parties may be permitted to terminate the contract.

The Supreme Court held that the governor of “A” was at liberty to decide on a mercy petition filed by AG Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence for his role in “B”’s assassination. The court was hearing the Centre’s challenge to a 2014 proposal by Tamil Nadu to free the seven convicted assassins of the former prime minister. On Sunday, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet resolved to advise the governor to release the convicts, all serving life terms. This has caused a legal conundrum: is the governor bound by the Cabinet’s advice? And even if he agrees to free them, will the convicts be released anytime soon?

“Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. Since the state’s executive power extends to all laws on the concurrent list, including the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor has the power to remit sentences handed down under such laws. In the particular matter of “B”’s assassins, though, the point of concurrence was insisted upon as the case had been investigated by a central agency. But given that the exercise of the governor’s power under Article “C” is constitutional, it does not require the Centre’s concurrence. The aid and advice of the state Cabinet is enough. It is settled in law that except in matters where the governor has discretion or enjoys independent powers, they are bound by the Cabinet’s decision. Governor does not have the option of returning a decision for reconsideration either since the Indian Constitution provides that recourse only for the President. However, the governor’s decision, even if made on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, is subject to judicial review. Further, the Supreme Court rulings on how the governer should make decisions under Article “C” add to the complexity of the present case.

The Supreme Court held that the governor of “A” was at liberty to decide on a mercy petition filed by AG Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence for his role in “B”’s assassination. The court was hearing the Centre’s challenge to a 2014 proposal by Tamil Nadu to free the seven convicted assassins of the former prime minister. On Sunday, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet resolved to advise the governor to release the convicts, all serving life terms. This has caused a legal conundrum: is the governor bound by the Cabinet’s advice? And even if he agrees to free them, will the convicts be released anytime soon?

“Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. Since the state’s executive power extends to all laws on the concurrent list, including the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor has the power to remit sentences handed down under such laws. In the particular matter of “B”’s assassins, though, the point of concurrence was insisted upon as the case had been investigated by a central agency. But given that the exercise of the governor’s power under Article “C” is constitutional, it does not require the Centre’s concurrence. The aid and advice of the state Cabinet is enough. It is settled in law that except in matters where the governor has discretion or enjoys independent powers, they are bound by the Cabinet’s decision. Governor does not have the option of returning a decision for reconsideration either since the Indian Constitution provides that recourse only for the President. However, the governor’s decision, even if made on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, is subject to judicial review. Further, the Supreme Court rulings on how the governer should make decisions under Article “C” add to the complexity of the present case.

The Supreme Court held that the governor of “A” was at liberty to decide on a mercy petition filed by AG Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence for his role in “B”’s assassination. The court was hearing the Centre’s challenge to a 2014 proposal by Tamil Nadu to free the seven convicted assassins of the former prime minister. On Sunday, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet resolved to advise the governor to release the convicts, all serving life terms. This has caused a legal conundrum: is the governor bound by the Cabinet’s advice? And even if he agrees to free them, will the convicts be released anytime soon?

“Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. Since the state’s executive power extends to all laws on the concurrent list, including the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor has the power to remit sentences handed down under such laws. In the particular matter of “B”’s assassins, though, the point of concurrence was insisted upon as the case had been investigated by a central agency. But given that the exercise of the governor’s power under Article “C” is constitutional, it does not require the Centre’s concurrence. The aid and advice of the state Cabinet is enough. It is settled in law that except in matters where the governor has discretion or enjoys independent powers, they are bound by the Cabinet’s decision. Governor does not have the option of returning a decision for reconsideration either since the Indian Constitution provides that recourse only for the President. However, the governor’s decision, even if made on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, is subject to judicial review. Further, the Supreme Court rulings on how the governer should make decisions under Article “C” add to the complexity of the present case.

The Supreme Court held that the governor of “A” was at liberty to decide on a mercy petition filed by AG Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence for his role in “B”’s assassination. The court was hearing the Centre’s challenge to a 2014 proposal by Tamil Nadu to free the seven convicted assassins of the former prime minister. On Sunday, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet resolved to advise the governor to release the convicts, all serving life terms. This has caused a legal conundrum: is the governor bound by the Cabinet’s advice? And even if he agrees to free them, will the convicts be released anytime soon?

“Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. Since the state’s executive power extends to all laws on the concurrent list, including the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor has the power to remit sentences handed down under such laws. In the particular matter of “B”’s assassins, though, the point of concurrence was insisted upon as the case had been investigated by a central agency. But given that the exercise of the governor’s power under Article “C” is constitutional, it does not require the Centre’s concurrence. The aid and advice of the state Cabinet is enough. It is settled in law that except in matters where the governor has discretion or enjoys independent powers, they are bound by the Cabinet’s decision. Governor does not have the option of returning a decision for reconsideration either since the Indian Constitution provides that recourse only for the President. However, the governor’s decision, even if made on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, is subject to judicial review. Further, the Supreme Court rulings on how the governer should make decisions under Article “C” add to the complexity of the present case.

The Supreme Court held that the governor of “A” was at liberty to decide on a mercy petition filed by AG Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence for his role in “B”’s assassination. The court was hearing the Centre’s challenge to a 2014 proposal by Tamil Nadu to free the seven convicted assassins of the former prime minister. On Sunday, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet resolved to advise the governor to release the convicts, all serving life terms. This has caused a legal conundrum: is the governor bound by the Cabinet’s advice? And even if he agrees to free them, will the convicts be released anytime soon?

“Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. Since the state’s executive power extends to all laws on the concurrent list, including the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor has the power to remit sentences handed down under such laws. In the particular matter of “B”’s assassins, though, the point of concurrence was insisted upon as the case had been investigated by a central agency. But given that the exercise of the governor’s power under Article “C” is constitutional, it does not require the Centre’s concurrence. The aid and advice of the state Cabinet is enough. It is settled in law that except in matters where the governor has discretion or enjoys independent powers, they are bound by the Cabinet’s decision. Governor does not have the option of returning a decision for reconsideration either since the Indian Constitution provides that recourse only for the President. However, the governor’s decision, even if made on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, is subject to judicial review. Further, the Supreme Court rulings on how the governer should make decisions under Article “C” add to the complexity of the present case.

The Supreme Court held that the governor of “A” was at liberty to decide on a mercy petition filed by AG Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence for his role in “B”’s assassination. The court was hearing the Centre’s challenge to a 2014 proposal by Tamil Nadu to free the seven convicted assassins of the former prime minister. On Sunday, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet resolved to advise the governor to release the convicts, all serving life terms. This has caused a legal conundrum: is the governor bound by the Cabinet’s advice? And even if he agrees to free them, will the convicts be released anytime soon?

“Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. Since the state’s executive power extends to all laws on the concurrent list, including the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor has the power to remit sentences handed down under such laws. In the particular matter of “B”’s assassins, though, the point of concurrence was insisted upon as the case had been investigated by a central agency. But given that the exercise of the governor’s power under Article “C” is constitutional, it does not require the Centre’s concurrence. The aid and advice of the state Cabinet is enough. It is settled in law that except in matters where the governor has discretion or enjoys independent powers, they are bound by the Cabinet’s decision. Governor does not have the option of returning a decision for reconsideration either since the Indian Constitution provides that recourse only for the President. However, the governor’s decision, even if made on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, is subject to judicial review. Further, the Supreme Court rulings on how the governer should make decisions under Article “C” add to the complexity of the present case.

The Supreme Court held that the governor of “A” was at liberty to decide on a mercy petition filed by AG Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence for his role in “B”’s assassination. The court was hearing the Centre’s challenge to a 2014 proposal by Tamil Nadu to free the seven convicted assassins of the former prime minister. On Sunday, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet resolved to advise the governor to release the convicts, all serving life terms. This has caused a legal conundrum: is the governor bound by the Cabinet’s advice? And even if he agrees to free them, will the convicts be released anytime soon?

“Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. Since the state’s executive power extends to all laws on the concurrent list, including the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor has the power to remit sentences handed down under such laws. In the particular matter of “B”’s assassins, though, the point of concurrence was insisted upon as the case had been investigated by a central agency. But given that the exercise of the governor’s power under Article “C” is constitutional, it does not require the Centre’s concurrence. The aid and advice of the state Cabinet is enough. It is settled in law that except in matters where the governor has discretion or enjoys independent powers, they are bound by the Cabinet’s decision. Governor does not have the option of returning a decision for reconsideration either since the Indian Constitution provides that recourse only for the President. However, the governor’s decision, even if made on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, is subject to judicial review. Further, the Supreme Court rulings on how the governer should make decisions under Article “C” add to the complexity of the present case.

The Supreme Court held that the governor of “A” was at liberty to decide on a mercy petition filed by AG Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence for his role in “B”’s assassination. The court was hearing the Centre’s challenge to a 2014 proposal by Tamil Nadu to free the seven convicted assassins of the former prime minister. On Sunday, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet resolved to advise the governor to release the convicts, all serving life terms. This has caused a legal conundrum: is the governor bound by the Cabinet’s advice? And even if he agrees to free them, will the convicts be released anytime soon?

“Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. Since the state’s executive power extends to all laws on the concurrent list, including the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor has the power to remit sentences handed down under such laws. In the particular matter of “B”’s assassins, though, the point of concurrence was insisted upon as the case had been investigated by a central agency. But given that the exercise of the governor’s power under Article “C” is constitutional, it does not require the Centre’s concurrence. The aid and advice of the state Cabinet is enough. It is settled in law that except in matters where the governor has discretion or enjoys independent powers, they are bound by the Cabinet’s decision. Governor does not have the option of returning a decision for reconsideration either since the Indian Constitution provides that recourse only for the President. However, the governor’s decision, even if made on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, is subject to judicial review. Further, the Supreme Court rulings on how the governer should make decisions under Article “C” add to the complexity of the present case.