my exam ws so so typs.....
How Was the IPCC/PCC Law Paper.....????
Page no : 13
Ashwini Sharma
(Articleship under CA)
(114 Points)
Replied 08 May 2010
yes dear exam was so easy but lenthy as per my concern....................................
Prachi Jindal
(CA-Article-Final-Student)
(129 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
| Originally posted by : Punit GoSwaMi | ||
 |
You Can Refer Any book...Its just a matter how u prepare for Exams...and how u r clear in ur concepts..... |
 |
yes...very truely said....every book has its own characteristic...all are good...as all give knowledge..thing is how better we grasp it...!!
Ashish Agrawal
(Practicing CA)
(45 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
paper was a difficult... 2 ques out of the syllabus.... Very tricky....
Mohit K
(Student of CA Final)
(89 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
very well said Punit and Prachi...
its just the concept that the Insti wants from us in anyways....
Prachi Jindal
(CA-Article-Final-Student)
(129 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
| Originally posted by : AJAY PRATAP | ||
|
|
As per my knowledge answers are: 1. a> w is not entitled to get reimbursement. b.i> incorrect b.ii> incorrect c.i> valid c.ii>holding out c.iii>holder for value 2.a> only y is liable as debt taken after 6 months and z didn,t have a knowledge of development. 2.b.i>correct 2.b.ii>incorrect 2.c.i> provisional contracts 2.c.ii>5.0% 2.c.iii>to declare dividends 3. j is liable to pay the bill due to his negligence, as he intend to cancel it, but he didn,t cancel the bill, only torn it and threw it. 4.in both the cases demand for bonus by employees is tenable as psu comes in the mobile business due to competition with private companies. 5.r resignation is invalid. 6. s is not entitled. 7. contention of j is not valid. 8.refusal of payment by company is valid. 9.yes k's objection is right. pls correct me if iam wrong. |
|
i think in the case where income is only 10% of gross income employees are not entitled to claim any bonus whereas they can in the case of 30%.
and in ques 8...company originally is not liable to pay the said amount but the contact with laptop dealer can be ratified by altering its object clause...as it is one of the specified purpose...n the agreement has been entered with in the apparent authority of the company.
plz correct if m wrong.
CA Karan Joshi
(ACA)
(149 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
ya ..above user is correct in respect of EPF question...!!
in case the income is below 20 % of the gross income ..the public sector enterprise shall b out of d purview of POBA 1965..!!
in Company law question...!! i have a different opinion...
first of all d act is ultra vires the company and that is for sure...!! as it is apparent from facts of question...!!
second.., retrospective ratification is not possible in case of MoA ..!!
thus in this case...Doctrine of Constructive Notice shall apply and company's refusal is valid..!!!
'coz MoA is public document and law presumes that every person dealing with the company has the knowledge of rights and powers of the company..!!
correct me if i m wrong..plz
-karan joshi
Ronak Choudhary
(CA Final Article)
(130 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
i traced my answers with Ajay's answers..
i think its not holding out nut ratifications
also, its not holder for value but a normal holder
guys correct me if i am wrong..
n wher is ankur today....no comments from him...
Sarvesh Kumar Singh
(Student CA Final (Articled Asst.))
(170 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
paper ne to dimag kharab kar diya...it was 2 lenthy
preety
(article)
(110 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
my attempt was 0f 85 marks,papr was damn lenghty,not able 2 complete last ques.
Aravind..
(CA)
(1262 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
one mark holder questions answer is holder in due course.
see it combined with negotiable instruments and contract act.
u ll understand the answer.
Rohit Jain
(PCC Article)
(40 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
Mere............toh dimag ka dahi ho gaya............yaar.too.........lengggggggggggggggggthyyyyyyyy............that wasssssssssss
vikash mallick
(Audit executive)
(21 Points)
Replied 09 May 2010
| Originally posted by : Punit GoSwaMi | ||
|
|
Hiieee frnds...tell me hw was ur law paper today???.....also reply me how many marks you have attempted.......reply......... |
|
are yaar so tough exam it was tricky too.........just attempting to break up the flow of student
Recent Topics
- Avoiding tax audit in case of intraday equity loss
- Form 3CEAB
- Form 3CEAA and Form 3CEAB
- DIR 3 Web KYC
- Can i declare LTCG income as business income if I
- Stock entry in new software
- I have an EMI collection shop, what is its SAC cod
- Making payment once in quarter possible under QRMP
- Master File Documentation related
- Applicability of 44AD needs clarification
Related Threads
CAclubindia
