Interpretation of Law – Multidisciplinary Case Studies Important Questions

Question 1.
Anita residing in Delhi publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of Babita of Mumbai. Babita wants to sue Anita in Calcutta. Advise Anita and Babita.
Answer:
Under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaintiff can sue the defendant in the place where the defendant resides or the Court where the cause of action arose. Hence Babita can bring the action against Anita in Delhi, where she resides, or in Calcutta, where the defamatory statement was made.

Question 2.
Ram and Shyam sell wheat for ₹ 10,000 to Sohan and Mohan. Sohan sells cloth worth ₹ 12,000 to Shyam. Sohan files a suit against Shyam for recovery of price of cloth. Shyam claims set off of the cost of wheat in this suit. Will he succeed?
Answer:
In this case, Ram and Shyam sell wheat worth ₹ 10,000 to Sohan and Mohan. Sohan sells cloth worth ₹ 12,000 to Shyam. Sohan then files for the recovery of his consideration for the cloth. Shyam wishes to,set off the price of wheat against the price of the cloth. He will not succeed, as under Rule 6 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, set off of claims is possible only when the parties to both claims are the same.

Question 3.
X resides at Bombay, Y at Delhi and Z at Chennai. X, Y and Z being together at Calcutta, Y and Z make a joint promissory note payable on demand and deliver it to X. Where can X sue Y and Z for amount of the promissory note.
Answer:
According to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in case of a dispute arising, the plaintiff can sue the defendants in a court within whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or work for gain. Alternatively, they can be sued in the place where the cause of action arose.

Hence, in this case, X can sue Y and Z at Delhi, Chennai or Calcutta.

Question 4.
XY and Co. files a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of ₹ 50,000 which were given by it as loan to its employee Z against the promissory note executed by him in the Court of the District Judge. Z received the summons for judgement in the suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Z files a written statement after 20 days of the receipt of summons in the said suit. The Court of District Judge ignores the written statement of Z and outright passes the judgement and decree for recovery of ₹ 50,000 with costs against Z. Examine the correctness of the procedure adopted by the Court of District Judge.
Answer:
Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 covers the details for .summary procedure. According to it, the defendant needs to file a Memorandum of Appearance within ten days of the service of summons on him. In this case, Z files a written statement after twenty days of the receipt of summons in the said suit. The District Judge ignores the statement and passes a judgement and decree for recovery of the entire sum plus costs again Z. The procedure adopted by the District Judge was entirely justified in the light of the statement given by Z coming after the required time set aside for leave to defend the suit. In such a situation, the judge is entitled to hear the suit exparte and pass the necessary judgement.

Question 5.
Amar files a suit against Binod for enhancement of rent. The court dismisses the suit holding that the rent is already too high. Binod now files a suit against Amar for reduction of rent and pleads that the previous decision that the rent is excessive will operate as res judicata. Is the plea valid?
Answer:
No, the suit is not maintainable as it is covered by the doctrine of ‘Constructive Res Judicata’ that is provided for in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It prevents further suits being filed for a matter that is at the core of a former suit. The reasons are as below –

The same party should not be troubled with the same matter again and again.
There should be a limit to the number of cases filed in a court, i.e. vexatious cases should not be entertained.
The same matter should not be used for wasting valuable court time repeatedly.

The basic requirement for applying this doctrine is that the matter that is at the core of the former suit should also be the main essence of the latter suit(s). Since this is not the case here, the subsequent suit will not be maintained.

Question 6.
Arjun who resides at Delhi entered into a contract with, Bheem at Mumbai for supply of certain goods at Kolkata where Bheem resides and carries on business. At the time of entering into contract, it was agreed upon between Arjun and Bheem that in case of any dispute regarding payment or delivery of goods arises, the suit will be filed only in Bangalore court. Bheem failed to make payment of goods. Arjun files a suit at Bangalore for recovery of money. Bheem alleges that Bangalore court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. Is the plea of Bheem maintainable?
Answer:
Yes, Bheem’s plea that the Bangalore court has no jurisdiction in the suit is maintainable. The justification for this lies in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It says that in case of a dispute arising, the plaintiff can sue the defendants in a court within whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or work for gain. Alternatively, they can be sued in the place where the cause of action arose, but in no third place.

Hence, in this case, the suit can be filed in Kolkata or Mumbai but not at 1 Delhi.

Question 7.
Anand filed a tenancy application under the Tenancy Act. His earlier suit was not maintainable before the civil court in view of bar created under section 85 of the Tenancy Act. Whether the decision rendered by the civil court would operate as res judicata for deciding tenancy application under the Tenancy Act?
Answer:
No, the decision rendered by the civil court would not operate as res judicata as the earlier suit was not maintainable. It is covered by the doctrine of ‘Constructive Res Judicata’ that is provided for in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It prevents further suits being filed for a matter that is at the core of a former suit.

The requirements and reasons are as below –

The same party should not be troubled with the same matter again and again.
There should be a limit to the number of cases filed in a court, i.e. vexatious cases should not be entertained.
The same matter should not be used for wasting valuable court time repeatedly.

Question 8.
A cause of action arises between two parties Surendra and Mahendra. The courts at Meerut and Ghaziabad are competent to try the suit. But both the parties to the contract agree to vest the jurisdiction in the court at Meerut. Is such an agreement valid?
Answer:
Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 says that in case of a dispute arising, the plaintiff can sue the defendants in a court within whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or work for gain. Alternatively, they can be sued in the place where the cause of action arose, but in no third place. However, if more than one court is competent to try the suit, then the parties can decide by mutual agreement upon one court. This will normally happen when the cause of action lies in more than one court’s jurisdiction.

Hence, in this case, the agreement of the parties to vest the jurisdiction in the court of Meerut is valid.

Question 9.
A suit was instituted by the plaintiff company alleging infringement by the defendant company by using trade name of biscuits and selling the same in the packing of identical design, etc., as that of plaintiff company. A subsequent suit was instituted in a different court by the defendant company against the plaintiff company with the similar allegations. Discuss the validity of the subsequent suit.
Answer :
The doctrine of res sub-judice refers to a matter pending before a judge, or court, or not yet decided. It is a matter under judicial consideration, meaning that a decision regarding the case it pertains to has not been reached yet. The doctrine or rule implies that if a matter is awaiting judicial proceedings and a decision may not be heard in any other court until it has been decided upon in the first court the matter was filed in. This doctrine helps in avoiding duplicity of cases, and prevents opposing judgements being reached in same matters (Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908).

The doctrine of ‘Constructive Res Judicata’ that is provided for in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It prevents further suits being filed for a matter that is at the core of a former suit.

Since the parties are the same in both suits and the subject matter of both the suits is also same, the second suit would be res sub-judice, and it will be stayed until the first suit is decided. The judgement of the first suit will then be res judicata for the second one.

Question 10.
Aman filed a suit against Bhuvan for obtaining a house and land property of Chaman on the ground that Chaman had bequeathed those properties to him by a will. But, Aman failed to prove the will and his suit was dismissed. Now, Aman files a fresh suit to get the properties of Chaman on the ground that he is the only and nearest heir to Chaman. Will Aman succeed?
Answer:
A dismissal of a suit operates as res judicata for suits filed on the same matter between the same parties. It is covered by the doctrine of ‘Constructive Res Judicata’ that is provided for in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It prevents further suits being filed for a matter that is at the core of a former suit.

The requirements and reasons are as below –

The same party should not be troubled with the same matter again and again.
There should be a limit to the number of cases filed in a court, i.e. vexatious cases should not be entertained.
The same matter should not be used for wasting valuable court time repeatedly.

Question 11.
Anubhav owes ₹ 10,000 to the partnership firm of Bose and Chander. Bose dies leaving Chander surviving. Anubhav sues Chander for a debt of ₹ 15,000 due in his individual capacity. Can Chander set off the debt of ₹ 10,000?
Answer:
This is covered by the terms of set-off provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ‘Set off’ means a settlement where both the plaintiff and the defendant have some claims to be collected from each other. What one party owes to another might be used to discharge all or a part of the debt he is owed by the other party.

In this case, after the death of Bose, only Chander survives in the partnership firm, to which Anubhav owes ? 10,000. Anubhav later on sues Chander for an individual debt of ₹ 15,000. Since the situation fulfils all the demands of a valid set-off, it is permissible.

Question 12.
Ajeet resides at Bhopal, Baljeet at Indore and Charanjeet at Lucknow. Ajeet, Baljeet and Charanjeet being together at Kolkata, Baljeet and Charanjeet make a joint promissory note payable on demand and deliver it to Ajeet. Where can Ajeet sue Baljeet and Charanjeet for the amount of the promissory note?
Answer:
According to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in case of a dispute arising, the plaintiff can sue the defendants in a court within whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or work for gain. Alternatively, they can be sued in the place where the cause of action arose.

Hence, in this case, Ajeet can sue Baljeet and Charanjeet at Indore, Lucknow or Kolkata.

Question 13.
Avinash, residing in Delhi, requests his friend Bishnoy, residing in Lucknow, for a loan of ₹ 10 lakh. Bishnoy asks Avinash to come to Lucknow and collect the cheque for the said amount. Accordingly, Avinash collects the cheque at Lucknow. Avinash has failed to repay the loan. Bishnoy wants to institute a suit for the recovery of loan against Avinash. Mention the place where Bishnoy can file a suit against Avinash. Give reasons in support of your answer.
Answer:
According to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in case of a dispute arising, the plaintiff can sue the defendants in a court within whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or work for gain. Alternatively, they can be sued in the place where the cause of action arose.
Hence, in this case, Ajeet can sue Baljeet and Charanjeet at Indore, Lucknow or Kolkata.

Question 14.
ABC Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company having its j corporate office in Mumbai. XYZ Ltd., another pharmaceutical company, is C carrying on pharmaceutical business at Nagpur. XYZ Ltd. published an advertisement at Bangalore constituting infringement of the registered trade mark of ABC Ltd. ABC Ltd. intends to institute a suit for damages against XYZ Ltd. Advise where ABC Ltd. should institute the suit.
Answer:
According to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in case of a dispute arising, the plaintiff can sue the defendants in a court within whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or work for gain. Alternatively, they can be sued in the place where the cause of action arose.
Hence, ABC Ltd. can institute a suit against XYZ Ltd. at Nagpur or Bangalore.

Question 15.
Avinash, residing in Delhi, requests his friend Bishnoy, residing in Lucknow, for a loan of ^ 10 lakh. Bishnoy asks Avinash to come to Lucknow and collect the cheque for the said amount. Accordingly, Avinash collects the cheque at Lucknow. Avinash has failed to repay the loan. Bishnoy wants to institute a suit for the recovery of loan against Avinash. Mention the place where Bishnoy can file a suit against Avinash. Give reasons in support of your answer.
Answer:
According to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in case of a dispute arising, the plaintiff can sue the defendants in a court within whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or work for gain. Alternatively, they can be sued in the place where the cause of action arose, in part or completely. Bishnoy can, hence, sue Avinash in Lucknow, as the cause of action arose there. Moreover, Avinash came to Lucknow to collect the loan amount, so he can be sued there.

Question 16.
A suit was instituted by Rosy Pvt. Ltd. dealing in cosmetics alleging infringement by Sunder Pvt. Ltd. by using trade name ‘Monica’ and selling the same in wrappers and cartons of identical design and colour used by the plaintiff company. A subsequent suit was instituted in different court by the defendant company (Sunder Pvt. Ltd.) against the plaintiff company with the same allegation. Decide, whether the subsequent suit will be allowed to continue. Give reasons and support your answer with case law.
Answer:
A suit was instituted by Rosy Pvt. Ltd. dealing in cosmetics alleging infringement by Sunder Pvt. Ltd. by using trade name ‘Monica’ and selling the same in wrappers and cartons of identical design and colour used by the plaintiff company. A subsequent suit was instituted in different court by the defendant company (Sunder Pvt. Ltd.) against the plaintiff company with the same allegation.

This case is covered by the Doctrine of Res Judicata. ‘The Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata’ has been provided in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It prevents further suits being filed for a matter that is at the core of a former suit.

The reasons are as below –

The same party should not be troubled with the same matter again and again.
There should be a limit to the number of cases filed in a court, i.e. vexatious cases should not be entertained.
The same matter should not be used for wasting valuable court time repeatedly.

The basic requirement for applying this doctrine is that the matter that is at the core of the former suit should also be the main essence of the latter suit(s). Hence, in this case, the subsequent suit will not be allowed to continue. This was also observed in the case of Ramdas Nayak v. Union of India , where the court observed: It is a repetitive litigation on the very same issue coming up before the courts again and again in the grab of public interest litigation. It is high time to put an end to the same.

Question 17.
A transport company has its head office at Mumbai and branch offices at Allahabad, Patna and Bhopal. A dispute cropped up between Sameer and the company in respect of a transaction through Allahabad office. Sameer files a suit in respect of this dispute against the company in a court at Patna. How will the court decide?
Answer:
According to Explanation II appended to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India, or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office at such place”.

In this view of the given facts of the case as well as the legal provisions mentioned above, the court at Patna has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the cause of action in respect of the transaction has not arisen through Patna Branch Office.

Question 18.
A suit was instituted by the plaintiff company alleging infringement by the defendant company for using trade name of medicine and selling the same in wrapper and carton of identical designs with same colour combination, etc., as that of plaintiff company. A subsequent suit was instituted in a different court by the defendant company against the plaintiff company with similar allegations. In such a situation, advise the plaintiff company the procedure adopted by the courts.
Answer:
Rule: Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with stay of suit. Stay of suits prevents courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of same matter in issue. The purpose is also to avoid conflict of decision. The institution of second suit is not barred but the trial cannot be proceeded with.

Facts of the case : A suit was instituted by the plaintiff company alleging infringement by the defendant company by using trade name of biscuits and selling the same in the packing of identical design, etc., as that of plaintiff company. A subsequent suit was instituted in a different court by the defendant company against the plaintiff company with the similar allegations.

Question involved : What is the validity of the subsequent suit?

Decision : The institution of subsequent suit as per the rule above is not barred but the trial cannot be proceeded with.

Question 19.
(a) Anil was a trustee of a trust. After Anil’s death, Brij wrongfully takes the possession of the trust property. Chandan, the son of Anil files a suit for recovery of possession of the property against Brij as the legal heir of Anil in his individual capacity. But Chandan did not succeed. Then Chandan files another suit for recovery of trust property against Brij in the capacity of trustee as he was appointed as trustee after the death of Anil. Whether the second suit is barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata? Explain.

(b) Mohan filed a suit against Sohan and Rohan for partition of coparcenery property ‘P-1′. The suit has been decided. Mohan files another suit against Sohan and Rohan for the partition of coparcenery property ‘P-2′, which was in existence at the time of filing of the first suit. Decide.
Answer:
(a) The Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata’ has been provided in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It prevents further suits being filed for a matter that is at the core of a former suit.

The reasons are as below –

The same party should not be troubled with the same matter again and again.
There should be a limit to the number of cases filed in a court, i.e. vexatious cases should not be entertained.
The same matter should not be used for wasting valuable court time repeatedly.

The basic requirement for applying this doctrine is that the matter that is at the core of the former suit should also be the main essence of the latter suit(s). In this case, the two suits are filed by Chandan in two different capacities. Hence, the second suit is not barred.

(b) This case is covered by Rule 2 (Order 2) of the CPC, which provides that in a previous suit filed by the plaintiff, the entire claim which he is . desirous of obtaining should be included. If it is not so done, inclusion of the claims left out in the previous plaint will not be allowed in a second plaint filed by the same party against the same defendant.

Hence, the second suit filed by Mohan against Sohan and Rohan is not to be allowed.

Question 20.
Ram and Shyam sell rice for ₹ 25,000 to Sohan and Mohan. Sohan sells cloth worth ₹ 28,000 to Shyam. Sohan files a suit , against Shyam for recovery of price of cloth. Shyam claims set-off of the cost of rice in this suit. Will he succeed?
Answer:
‘Set off means a settlement where both the plaintiff and the defendant have some claims to be collected from each other. What one party owes to another might be used to discharge all or a part of the debt he is owed by the other party.

In the given case, Sohan is the plaintiff while Shyam is the defendant. The amount of which set-off is claimed by the defendant Shyam is not recoverable from Mohan, who is jointly liable with Sohan to pay it. Mohan is not party to this suit.

In view of the factual situation, Shyam will not be allowed set-off of the amount claimed by him, as set off is allowed only against those parties which are jointly liable in the first place.

Question 21.
A transport company has its head office at Kolkata and branch offices at Allahabad, Lucknow and Puri. A dispute cropped up between Hassan and the transport company in respect of a transaction through Allahabad office. Hassan files a suit in respect of this dispute against the company in a court at Puri. Is the court at Puri competent to decide this case ? Give reasons.
Answer:
The suit can only be filed in Kolkata or Allahabad, but not in Puri, as per Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Procedure Code 1908, Section 20, tells about where suits are to be instituted – where defendants reside or cause of action arises.

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction –
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in sych institution; or

Question 22.
A suit was instituted by the plaintiff company alleging infringement by the defendant company by using trade name of medicine and selling the same colour combination, etc., as that of plaintiff company. A subsequent suit was instituted in a different court by the defendant company containing the same allegations. Advise the plaintiff company about the steps to be taken by it giving reference to relevant legal provisions and case law.
Answer:
In this case, the plaintiff can file an application for a stay on the subsequent suit. ‘Stay of suit’ implies the action taken under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is the Doctrine of res sub-judice. The doctrine of res sub-judice refers to a matter pending before a judge, or court, or not yet decided. It is a matter under judicial consideration, meaning that a decision regarding the case it pertains to has not been reached yet.

The doctrine or rule implies that if a matter is awaiting judicial proceedings and a decision may not be heard in any other court until it has been decided upon in the first court the matter was filed in. This doctrine helps in avoiding duplicity of cases, and prevents opposing judgements being reached in same matters (Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908). When such a case arises, generally a stay operates on the second or following suit.

Question 23.
Robert Steel Tube Co. Ltd. had applied for allotment of 2500 acres of land on 30-6-1994 and in principle approval of allotment of 2500 acres of land was given on the terms and conditions laid down in the policy decision of the State Government as revised on 25-1-1995 for the establishment of the steel plant.

Robert Steel Tube Co. Ltd. deposited ₹ 1.25 crores with the Haryana Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (Corp.) on 3-4-1995 and took possession of 1756.29 acres of land in the first phase in 1996. However, the company did not execute the lease deed with the Corporation. Ultimately, on 25-7-2003 on failure to get the lease deed executed, the land was resumed and possession letter of 1756.29 acres of land was cancelled by the Corporation. The amount of ₹ 1.25 crores deposited by the company was forfeited and adjusted towards compensation for use and occupation of the land and damages.

Out of the resumed land, the Corporation allotted 934.31 acres of land to other units. Robert Steel Tube Co. Ltd. made unsuccessful representations to the Corporation for allottment. Thereafter, the company filed a writ petition before the High Court for allotment of the balance land of 821.98 acres to it. Will the company succeed in its petition against the Corporation? Give reasons in support of your answer.
Answer:
The fact of the case is similar to the fact of Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporate vs. M/S MESCO kalinga Steel Limited and Others (With CA No. 2546/2017 (@ SLP(c) No. 23759/2007 and CA No. 2547/2017 (@SLP (C) No. 2683/2008)).

In this matter, the possession of land had been enjoyed by the company for around seven years without execution of the lease deed. No explanation has been placed on record for inaction on part of the company. In this regard, the company has also not been able to prove that they were not negligent even after the timely, initiation by the authorities for the execution of the lease dead with the Corporation.

The transfer had become void due to the company’s own lapse and negligence. The company had forfeited the right to get the lease deed executed, as in the absence of execution of lease deed, the relationship of lessor and lessee never came into being under the legal perspectives. The company waited for years after taking possession.

The company is statutory authority and it can act on the basis of written lease deed. The execution of the lease deed is necessary and it is in the public- interest to prevent unauthorized leasing out of property on its behalf. Lease is required to be executed in a presented format in the shape of formal development which is a sine quo non as-per the law of the land.

In the absence thereof, it would not be permissible to hold the relationship of lessor and the lessee. The corporation is a statutory body and can act only in the mode prescribed. Further, one has to be aware of the fact that ignorantia legis neminem excusat, means Ignorance of Law is no excuse.

In this paradigm, the company should be aware of the legal procedure prost the allotment of the land and should be ready to accept the consequences for ignoring the required process of the law to be observed by them The. conduct of the company was not in line with the compliances and responsibilities required to be adhered under law, as it remained negligent in execute the lease deed.

There was no contract which could have been enforced and it became void due to inaction of the company itself. The conduct of the company had no justification at any point of time not to execute the lease deed. Henceforth, there is no equitable or legal consideration in favor of the company, wherein they could succeed in its petition against the Corporation.

Question 24.
The Statutory Auditor of your Company allegedly got transferred 1000 shares of the Company in his name. However, the matter was ultimately resolved and settled between Auditor and the complainant, despite which Disciplinary Committee of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) took up the case and ultimately found that the conduct of Statutory Auditor was derogatory in nature and highly unbecoming and held him guilty of ‘Other misconduct’ under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants’Act, 1949.

The Council of ICAI removed the Auditor from the rolls for a period of six months. The Auditor appealed against the same. Will he succeed?
Answer:
The present problem is similar to the case of Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountant [SC] Civil Appeal No. 11034 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19564/2017). In the case cited above, the Disciplinary Committee has found the Chartered Accountant guilty of practice (similar to the facts in the question) which was not in his professional capacity.

The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India [ICAI], made its recommendation to the High Court to remove the aforesaid Chartered Accountant for a period of six months from the rolls. The Council of [GAI was entitled to do so under Schedule I Part-IV sub-clause (2) of Chartered Accountant Act, 1949 if, in the opinion Of the Council, such act brings disrepute to the profession whether or not related to his professional work.

However, High Court declined to remove him from the rolls for six months. Hon’ble Supreme Court held “in the case, it is clear that the impugned judgment is incorrect and must, therefore, be set aside. The matter be remanded to the High Court to be decided afresh leaving all contentions open to both parties.” Applying the rationale of the above decision, it can be decided that the Auditor will not succeed in his appeal.

Interpretation of Law – Multidisciplinary Case Studies Important Questions

Interpretation of Law – Multidisciplinary Case Studies Important Questions

Multidisciplinary Case Studies CS Professional Notes