maintenance under Section 125 of the Code

Three questions arise for our consideration;

(i) whether interim maintenance could be awarded in absence of specific express provision in the Code;

(ii) whether the applicant-wife and her daughter are entitled to maintenance from the date of the order passed by the Family Court or from the date of application made by them under Section 125 of the Code; and

(iii) what could be the amount of maintenance which could be awarded by the
Court.

This appeal is filed against the order passed by

On the contentions raised, the following questions arise for our consideration : (i) Whether informed consent of a patient is necessary for surgical procedure involving removal of reproductive organs? If so what is the nature of such consent ?
(ii) When a patient consults a medical practitioner, whether consent given for diagnostic surgery, can be construed as consent for performing additional or further surgical procedure -- either as conservative treatment or as radical treatment -- without the specific consent for such additional or further surgery.
(iii) Whether there was consent by the appellant, for the abdominal hysterectomy and Bilateral Salpingo-oopherectomy (for short AH-BSO) performed by the respondent?
(iv) Whether the respondent had falsely invented a case that appellant was suffering from endometriosis to explain the unauthorized and unwarranted removal of uterus and ovaries, and whether such radical surgery was either to cover-up negligence in conducting diagnostic laparoscopy or to claim a higher fee ?
(v) Even if appellant was suffering from endometriosis, the respondent ought to have resorted to conservative treatment/surgery instead of performing radical surgery ?
(vi) Whether the Respondent is guilty of the tortious act of negligence/battery amounting to deficiency in service, and consequently liable to pay damages to the appellant

principles for grant or refusal to grant of injunction to restrain enforcement of a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit

From the discussions made hereinabove relating to the principles for grant or refusal to grant of injunction to restrain enforcement of a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit, we find that the following principles should be noted in the matter of injunction to restrain the encashment of a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit :-
(i) While dealing with an application for injunction in the course of commercial dealings, and when an unconditional Bank Guarantee or Letter of Credit is given or accepted, the Beneficiary is entitled to realize such a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit in terms thereof irrespective of any pending disputes relating to the terms of the contract.
(ii) The Bank giving such guarantee is bound to honour it as per its terms irrespective of any dispute raised by its customer.
(iii) The Courts should be slow in granting an order of injunction to restrain the realization of a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit.
(iv) Since a Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit is an independent and a separate contract and is absolute in nature, the existence of any dispute between the parties to the contract is not a ground for issuing an order of injunction to restrain enforcement of Bank Guarantees or Letters of Credit.(v) Fraud of an egregious nature which would vitiate the very foundation of such a Bank Guarantee or Letter of Credit and the beneficiary seeks to take advantage of the situation.
(vi) Allowing encashment of an unconditional Bank Guarantee or a Letter of Credit would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned.

definition of Misconduct

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6835 of 2000

PETITIONER:
Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India & Ors

RESPONDENT:
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/05/2007
………………………………………………………….
Somewhere in this matter is held:
We are herein concerned with the term 'misconduct'. The word
'misconduct' which in generic sense would mean, as held in Probodh Kumar
Bhowmick v. University of Calcutta and Ors. 1994 (2) C.L.J. 456 is as
under:

"Misconduct, inter alia, envisages breach of discipline,
although it would not be possible to lay down
exhaustively as to what would constitute conduct and
indiscipline, which, however, wide enough to include
wrongful omission or commission whether done or
omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. It
means, 'improper behaviour; intentional wrong doing on
deliberate violation of a rule of standard or behaviour':

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except
what necessity may demand; it is a violation of definite
law a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness.
Misconduct even if it is an offence under the Indian
Penal Code is equally a misconduct."

[See also State of Punjab and Others v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable - AIR
1992 SC 2188 : (1992) 4 SCC 54 and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India
(1995) 6 SCC 749].

Interpretation of law is the job of the superior court. An opinion of an
expert is not beyond the pale of judicial review. It would certainly not be so
when the statutory authority transgresses its jurisdiction. A decision taken in
excess of jurisdiction would render the same a nullity. [See Vasu Dev Singh
& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (11) SCALE 108]

If a notification issued under a statute is a law within the meaning of
Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution, the same is liable to be struck down if it
is contrary to any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. [See Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private
Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 641]. In our
opinion the notification dated 03.08.1989 issued by respondent No.1 violates
Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and is hereby quashed.

What constitutes a reasonable notice by an arbitrator

For constituting a reasonable opportunity, the following conditions are required to be observed :

1. Each party must have notice that the hearing is to take place.
2. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to be present at the hearing, together with his advisers and witnesses.
3. Each party must have the opportunity to be present throughout the hearing
4. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of his own case.
5. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to test his opponent's case by cross-examining his witnesses, presenting rebutting evidence and addressing oral argument.
6. The hearing must, unless the contrary is expressly agreed, be the occasion on which the parties present the whole of their evidence and argument.