Ob - Judgment Search Results

Amaregouda S/Ob Asanagouda Mulimani Alias Patil vs State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

approval for entering the name of individual concerned to the Register of Rowdies without calling for records and objectively considering the same. He shall briefly record his reasons for according the approval and mark a copy thereof

Ob (by His Mother and Litigation Friend) (Fc) (Respondent) Vs. Aventis ...

Court: UK Supreme Court

considered that it was clear that the European Court was saying that, in some circumstances, proceedings, which are obviously intended to be proceedings against the producer but which use the wrong name, can properly be treated by

East India Hotels Vs. Ob Int. Hotel Employees

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1995)ILLJ1177Del; 1995RLR149

other employees of the hotel to resort to violent activities, holding demonstrations, dharnas, gheraos, strike and have been obstructing the Ingress and egress of the willing employees in order to put pressure on the plaintiff to withdraw

Dr.J. Radha Consultant, Gyn. and Obs. Apollo Multi Speciality Hospital ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

qualified anaesthetist, Dr.N.Seetarama Raju has given anaesthesia with all precautions. On the same night of 27-4-2008, opposite party observed high grade fever and delirium and gave symptomatic treatment and the complainant was stable hemodynamically but later altered

Ob (by His Mother and Litigation Friend) (Fc) (Respondent) Vs. Aventis ...

Court: House of Lords

the real producer and amended accordingly? 10. The nature of the issue appears clearly enough from the written observations submitted by the Commission, the Republic of Italy, the claimant and the respondent. The Commission said unequivocally in

Ganji Subbarayudu S/O Naganna Vs. K. Sudharshana Rao S/O K. Subba Rao,

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(3)ALT695

documentary evidence adduced by both parties. On basis of the pleadings, the lower court dismissed the Application by observing that either the allegations in the plaint or the evidence given by PW-1 does not disclose the ingredients