Author: Shameksha Raghavan

Case Facts The hospital was found to have inadequate manpower, poor coordination, and improper record-keeping of specimens and operative findings. The surgeon neglected treatment protocols, specifically failing to follow up on the histopathological examination (HPE) report despite it being crucial for the patient’s cancer therapy. The hospital claimed a laparoscopic surgery was done, but only a CBD exploration was performed, highlighting procedural misrepresentation. The patient developed metastasis, ultimately losing the opportunity for early therapy. Due to these lapses, the hospital’s actions were deemed “negligence per se” by the Disciplinary Medical Committee (DMC). Issues Whether the hospital and surgeon failed in…

Murlidhar Vincom Pvt. Ltd. v. Skoda (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2024) Facts From 2009 to 2014, Murlidhar Vincom Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) made investments in the form of “Share Application Money” in Skoda (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). Initially, equity shares amounting to ₹6.98 Lakh were issued, followed by additional investments of ₹1.32 Crore, yet no shares were issued in return. Skoda (India) Pvt. Ltd. paid back ₹40 Lakh but later sought additional payments of ₹79 Lakh to resolve a liquidity issue. They did not issue shares against the payment or repay the remaining ₹92 Lakh. Claiming the payment was a financial…