Ca Inter Law Case Study MCQ Answers 1620378303
Ca Inter Law Case Study MCQ Answers 1620378303
Ca Inter Law Case Study MCQ Answers 1620378303
LAW MCQS
Answers
Answers to MCQ 1:
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:
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:
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:
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
CAtestseries.org Page 3