In a big relief to liquor companies which are holding their stocks worth more than Rs. 200 crore in Bihar, the Supreme Court on Monday granted them two months more time to transport liquor out of the state and directed them to dispose off their stocks by July 31.

I. Beverages Companies contended that it was possible even to destroy the existing stocks by the end of this month.

II. The apex court had earlier fixed a deadline of May 31 for the companies to dispose off their stocks.

III. Seeking more time for transporting the stocks out of state, the confederation said in its petition that delay in disposing off stocks was beyond its control as clearances were required from various agencies.

Which of the following can be the Presupposition of the given statement?

Question

In a big relief to liquor companies which are holding their stocks worth more than Rs. 200 crore in Bihar, the Supreme Court on Monday granted them two months more time to transport liquor out of the state and directed them to dispose off their stocks by July 31.

I. Beverages Companies contended that it was possible even to destroy the existing stocks by the end of this month.

II. The apex court had earlier fixed a deadline of May 31 for the companies to dispose off their stocks.

III. Seeking more time for transporting the stocks out of state, the confederation said in its petition that delay in disposing off stocks was beyond its control as clearances were required from various agencies.

Which of the following can be the Presupposition of the given statement?

Accepted Answer

**Solution:**

1. The given statement mentions that the Supreme Court granted two months more time and directed disposal by July 31.

2. Statement I says companies contended it was possible to destroy stocks by the end of this month. This is not supported or implied by the given statement; rather, the statement implies that it was not possible to clear stocks by the earlier deadline, hence the extension. So, Statement I cannot be assumed.

3. Statement II says the apex court had earlier fixed May 31 as the deadline. The given statement says the court granted two months more time, implying there was an earlier deadline (May 31). So, Statement II can be assumed.

4. Statement III says the confederation petitioned for more time because delays were beyond their control due to required clearances. The original statement mentions the court granted more time to transport liquor out of the state, implying some difficulty or delay in transportation, which aligns with Statement III.

**Answer:** (b) Only II and III

Answer

Answer

Answer