CLAT PG 2024 Question Paper with Solutions - Download Answer Key PDF

Are you preparing for CLAT PG 2026? Look at the CLAT PG Question Paper Analysis 2024 to better prepare for CLAT PG 2026! CLAT PG is an examination that happens every year in December as a gateway to entering master's programs of Law at national law universities. It serves 2 purposes. Firstly, it is a gateway to enter into prestigious national universities of India for the Masters program and secondly, the Top ranker gets a direct election in public sector undertakings as a law officer. Many people go for the second idea as it is completely dependent upon the law subjects that one has read on the journey of Law School.

Latest: CLAT PG 2025 Result Out - Direct Link

New: CLAT PG 2025 Answer Key with Detailed Solutions (PDF)

This Story also Contains

1. CLAT PG 2024 Question Paper with Answer Key & Detailed Solutions PDF
2. CLAT PG 2024 Question Papers: Subject-wise division
3. CLAT PG 2024 Question Paper and Answer

CLAT PG 2024 Question Paper with Answer Key & Detailed Solutions PDF

You may also check the previous year's question paper with detailed solutions:

• CLAT PG 2023 Question Paper with Detailed Solutions
• CLAT PG 2022 Question Paper with Detailed Solutions
• CLAT PG 2021 Question Paper with Detailed Solutions
• CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper with Detailed Solutions

CLAT PG 2024 Question Papers: Subject-wise division

The bulk of passages on the CLAT PG 2024 Exam focused on Important Topics of CLAT PG such as the Constitution, Criminal Law, Contract Law, Transfer of Property Act, and Jurisprudence. Here is a breakdown of the constitutional law passages covered in the Exam.

• Constitutional and criminal law: There were a total of three passages each from constitutional and criminal law. The subject saw the levels of difficulty on various levels. Constitutional law was on the easier to moderate side whereas criminal law was a bit challenging as it came up with the case, laws and direct questions.

• Jurisprudence: There were a total of two passages on jurisprudence. It was quite an easier side. The questions were direct. The indirect questions referred to cases were absent making the passage relatively easy as compared to constitutional and criminal law.

• Tort law: As it is seen in the various years of the Law School journey tort law is not much developed in India, still, the topic came in the examination with torture liability of the state, which was not anticipated by any of the students as per the trends.

• Historical and legal current affairs: As the paper part and changed, the relevance also changed this year. The paper included five passages related to 2023 three passages related to 2022 and landmark judgements of various years one of the passages was on genocide which is focused on public interest litigation, as it was mentioned that it will be a passage-based examination. Such questions could have been expected.

• Miscellaneous topics: Miscellaneous topics include subjects which are less focused and do not have much weightage, but this year passages from lesser focus. Subjects also came by topics were specific relief, act and taxation, which are kind of procedural appeared in the examination.

As the paper pattern has changed and given the length of the paper time, management and selective answering are crucial skills, a strong foundation in major loss subjects such as constitutional law, criminal law, jurisprudence, administrative law, public international law is important as per must be prepared for unexpected topics and must and must read the current legal affairs as well as the updated with the landmark judgement. A comprehensive reading skill would be appreciated.

CLAT PG 2024 Question Paper and Answer

An unpleasant tussle occurred between TATA Sons and Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (“CPM”) in October 2016, when Mistry, who was the sixth chairman of Tata Sons, was ousted from the position of Executive Chairman of Tata Sons Limited. CPM took over as the chairman in 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement. Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote. Cyrus Investments Private Limited and Sterling Investment Corporation Private Limited belonged to the Shapoorji Palloni Group in which CPM held a controlling interest (about 2% of the issued share capital of Tata Sons). Seven out of the nine directors of Tata Sons voted for CPM’s replacement after Farida Khambata abstained and Mistry was declared ineligible to vote as he was an interested director. Mistry challenged his removal, accusing the board of mismanagement and of oppressing minority shareholders. however, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected his petition. After this Mistry challenged his removal in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). In 2018, the NCLAT order restored Mistry as the group’s executive chairman. Tata Sons challenged that NCLAT order in the Supreme Court. CPM also challenged the order for a few more relief. Supreme Court stayed NCLAT’s order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Sons and restoring his directorships in the holding company as well as three group companies, with a preliminary observation that the first impression of the order was “not good” and that the tribunal ‘could’ not have given consequential relief that had not been sought in the first place. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided the case in favour of Tata Sons. One of the issues decided by Supreme Court was that “whether the case was fit to be qualified as a situation of ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013?”. On this issue, the Supreme Court observed that “unless the removal of a person as a chairman of a company is oppressive or mismanaged or done in a prejudicial manner damaging the interests of the company, its members or the public at large, the NCLT cannot interfere with the removal of a person as a Chairman of a Company in a petition under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013.” This case highlighted the point that “an executive chairman does not have sovereign authority over the company. In corporate democracy, decision making always remains with the Board as long as they enjoy the pleasure of the shareholders. Likewise, an executive chairman will continue as long as he/she enjoys the pleasure of the Board. An assumption by the executive chairman that he/she would have a free hand in running the affairs of the company is incongruous to corporate governance and corporate democracy. The Tribunal held that the concept of ‘free hand rule’ is antithesis to collective responsibility and collective decision making”. [Based on Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC 122].

Q1. The parties in this case approached the Supreme Court of India under which of the following provision:

(A) Appeal under section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013.

(B) A Class Action Suit under Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013.

(C) Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

(D) Appeal under section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Answer - (C) Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Explanation: This is correct as SLP under Article 136 is the Supreme Court's

discretionary power to hear appeals against any court or tribunal's decision in

India.

Q2. The rule of ‘supremacy of majority’ in governing the affairs of a company has been settled in a very old leading case of Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461. In India, which case diluted the majority rule and held that the interest of the company was above the interest of its shareholders either majority or minority?

(A) Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. A. Nageshwara Rao

(B) Bagree Cereals v. Hanuman Prasad Bagri.

(C) Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd.

(D) Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India).

Answer - (D) Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd.

Explanation: This is correct because it emphasises that the company's interests prevail over the majority's interests, establishing a precedent for protecting minority shareholders and the company itself.

Q3. While recommending “Separation of the Roles of Non-executive Chairperson and Managing Director/ CEO”, the Kotak Mahindra Committee quoted the following text: “Given the importance and the particular nature of the chairmen’s role, it should in principle be separate from that of the chief executive. If the two roles are combined in one person, it represents a considerable concentration of power”. This quote refers to which of the following Committee Report?

(A) Cohen Committee Report

(B) Cadbury Committee Report

(C) Hampel Committee Report

(D) Narayana Murthy Committee Report

Answer - (B) Cadbury Committee Report

Explanation: Correct because the Cadbury Committee Report is known for its recommendations on corporate governance, including the separation of the roles of the chairperson and CEO/MD.

Q4. Which of the following statement is true regarding share qualification requirement under section 244 for applying for relief from oppression/ mismanagement under section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 (in the case of a company having a share capital)?

(A) Members not less than 100 members of the company or 10% of the total number of its members, whichever is less or any member or members holding not less than 10% of the issued share capital of the company.

(B) Members not less than 100 members of the company and 10% of the total number of its members or members holding not less than 10% of the issued share capital of the company.

(C) Not less than 20% of the total number of its members.

(D) Members not less than 50 members of the company and 5% of the total number of its members or members holding not less than 5% of the issued share capital of the company.

Answer - (A) Members not less than 100 members of the company or 10% of the total number of its members, whichever is less or any member or members holding not less than 10% of the issued share capital of the company.

Explanation: This is the accurate requirement under section 244 for members to apply for relief under section 241, providing two pathways based on the number of members or the percentage of issued share capital they hold.

Q5. Statement I - Power to grant relief from oppression/mismanagement which were vested by section 402 of the 1956 Act in High Court have now been transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal by section 242 of the 2013 Act. Statement II - Section 242 does not empower National Company Law Appellate Tribunal to grant relief by way of prevention of apprehended mismanagement of the company due to material change which has taken place in its management or control.

(A) Statement I is untrue

(B) Statement II is untrue

(C) Both Statements I and II are untrue

(D) Both Statements I and II are true

Answer - (D) Both Statements I and II are true. Explanation for Statement I: True, as the Companies Act of 2013 shifted the jurisdiction for these matters from the High Courts to the NCLT, reflecting a significant change in handling cases of oppression and mismanagement.

Explanation for Statement II: Also true, as Section 242 focuses on addressing actual instances of oppression or mismanagement rather than preemptive action based on potential future mismanagement

You may also check:

• CLAT PG Books
• How To Prepare For CLAT PG
• CLAT PG Mock Test
• CLAT PG Study Material
• CLAT PG Previous Year Question Paper