JULY - 2010

• Question of status shall be governed according to law of domicile/ incorporation unless the same is contrary to public policy. Technip Sa v. SMS Holding (P) Limited [Supreme Court]

• When there is a mandatory sentence specified for a crime, then the corporate entity cannot be punished with it; however, Court empowered to impose maximum fine specified in the same provision. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, [Supreme Court]

• In the deed conveyancing title to the land, absence of map giving full description of the property would render the agreement unenforceable. Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha v. Sambhajirao, [Supreme Court].

• While interpreting an arbitration clause, held, principles regarding interpretation of statutes regarding section heading or marginal note can be applied for construction of the arbitration clause. Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Sanjay Transport Agency, [Supreme Court].

• It is presumed that when a document is signed, particularly by the businessmen, then they have read & understood the contents of the same. Grasim Industries Limited v. Agarwal Steel, [Supreme Court].

• Prior to operation, norms for consent prescribed Samira Kohli v. Dr.Prabha Manchanda, [Supreme Court]

• Whosoever had undergone imprisonment for a single day or more would fall within the ambit of this provision, and entitled for benefits under the scheme of Swantantrate Sangram Nidhi. Shiv Narain Johri v. State Government of MP, [Madhya Pradesh].

• When negligence in surgical operation resulting in acute paraplegia (paralysis from waist-down), then an award of Rs.One crore and Fifty lakh awarded. Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S Dhananka, [Supreme Court]

• No methods of contraception are foolproof, and one may conceive after operation due to natural causes. Resultantly, no compensation available from surgeon or employer. State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram [Supreme Court]

• When the doctor used the prevelant practises, using equipments generally used at the time of operation, and would not be such standard that no one in the professional community would adopt it; then such would not tantamount to medical negligence. Jacob Matthew v. State of Punjab, [Supreme Court]

• When the anaesthesia was administered by incompetent person, when there was no emergency in situation, and the mother aged 30 years was enjoying good health prior to the operation, then it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Ku.Bharti v. State of MP, [Madhya Pradesh].