Ca Inter Law Case Study MCQ Answers 1620378303

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

CA – inter

LAW MCQS
Answers
Answers to MCQ 1:

1. (1) Company and other person involved


2. (1) Along with application money
3. (2) yes as per provision of companies act, 2013
4. (3) During first offer they shall file shelf prospectus with a validity on one year, so
subsequent offer issued during the period of validity of that prospectus, no further
prospectus is required;
5. (2)50,000

Answers to MCQ 2:

1. (1) Valid
2. (1) incorrect that till face value of security 1 lakh auditor can be appointed
3. (2) incorrect because MD Signature is required
4. (1) no extension will be given

Answers to MCQ 3:

1. (1) Section 13 do not apply


2. (4) 100% consent
3. (2) 30 Days
4. (1) 18%

Answers to MCQ 4:

1. (2) The company is prohibited from providing ‘Right of Renunciation’ and therefore,
the letter of offer and the application form need not include any such clause.

CAtestseries.org Page 1
2. (2) It is necessary to get the charge on plot on land registered with the concerned
Registrar of Companies (ROC) irrespective of the fact that mortgage is registered
with the Central Registry.
3. (2) 20 days
4. (3) Business decisions

Answers to MCQ 5:

1. (1) the banker is protected and is discharged


2. (2)
3. (1) Discharged if changed made in the contract without the conset of surety
4. (1) Mr. Vikas, will be liable as a surety for the act of Mr. Chintu before the change in the terms of the
contract i.e., during the first six months. Variation in the terms of the contract (as to the
reduction of salary) without consent of Mr. Vikas, will discharge Mr. Vikas from all the liabilities
towards the act of the Mr. Chintu after such variation.
5. (3) 3 Days

Answers to MCQ 6:

1. (2)
2. (4)
3. (3)
4. (1)

Answers to MCQ 7:

1. (2) 30 Days
2. (2)original 30 days and 30 days extension allowed
3. (1) Correct
4. (1) 12 Nov, 2018

CAtestseries.org Page 2
Answers to MCQ 8:

1. (4) Provision of Company act


2. (2) Name of director Mr. W who voted against the resolution.
3. (1)
4. (4)

Answers to MCQ 9:

1. (1) Correct
2. (1) Parth cannot repudiate the transaction under section 215. Also, under Section 216, Parth cannot
claim any benefit from Sapna as he had knowledge that Sapna was acting on her own account in
the business of the agency.
3. (2) Yes, it can be deemed that the notice was rightfully served on Parth.
4. (4)Contract Act
5. (3) Contract Act

Answers to MCQ 10:

1. (1) Subsequent another 5 years are allowed


2. (1) liable for penal action
3. (2) Not liable
4. (3) Business decisions

CAtestseries.org Page 3

You might also like