Search results
Aug 1, 2016 · V. Kumar (VK) is Regents Professor, Richard and Susan Lenny Distinguished Chair Professor, and Executive Director, Centre for Excellence in Brand and Customer Management at the J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University; Chang Jiang Scholar, Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST); Lee Kong Chian Fellow ...
2.1 The plaintiff examined four witnesses, namely, PW1 – Kapil Kumar (plaintiff), PW2 – Yashpal Chand (handwriting and finger print expert), PW3 – Satish Kumar (deed writer) and PW4 – Sat Narian (clerk to prove legal notice). 2.2 The defendant examined three witnesses, namely, DW1 – Dinesh Kumar (clerk cum cashier, SBI to prove the ...
Oct 18, 2010 · New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567). 9. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability.
Mar 11, 2008 · In Kumar v. Kumar, 976 So.2d 957, 960 (¶ 13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008), this Court stated that "[t]he chancellor's determination of whether a spouse's conduct rose to the level of cruel and inhuman treatment is a determination of law" that we review de novo.
Aug 5, 2019 · The appellants at the very outset challenge the maintainability of eviction petitions filed by the landlord under 14 (1) (e) on the ground of bonafide need. The facts are being taken from C.A.No.3793 of 2016 ( Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi) for considering the issues which have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant at the ...
V.Kumar vs R.Natarajan on 17 June, 2021. 14. Admittedly, the first respondent filed the earlier suits for the very same cause of action arose in the year 1994 & 1997 and both the suits were duly contested and dismissed on merits. The present impugned suit has been filed for the very same cause of action for the very same property.
Kumar approached the Bombay High Court to set aside the three interception orders and all evidence gathered based on the telephone recordings. He argued that the interception orders were unlawful by violating his constitutional right of privacy under article 21 of the Constitution, and because the correct procedure was not followed in obtaining ...
