depth and abdomen. Margins inserted. No charring, no tattooing, no blackening present. Kept under observation and advised x-ray. Size varying from ... left buttock. Margins inserted. Charring, blackening, tattooing absent. Shots not palpable. Adv. X-ray. Size varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm.
(iii) Multiple firearm
Medical Examination as the
Petitioner already undergone to Remove the Tattoo
and further be pleased to declare the act of the
Respondents as illegal, arbitrary ... petitioner that he has not been appointed
in view of a tattoo on his right forearm. After
Page 1 of 5
Downloaded
Tattoo Dinesh @ Dineshkumar vs Unknown on 6 December, 2022
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash , N. Anand Venkatesh ... JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
H.C.P.No.952 of 2022
Tattoo Dinesh @ Dineshkumar Petitioner
v
1 The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise
accepted by the selection centre. In course of
medical examination, permanent body tattoos were noticed and therefore, the
petitioners were directed to submit photograph ... body tattoo with details of
size and type as well as an undertaking that there would be no further tattoos
thereafter.
3) However, the names
Girish Nayak @ Tattoo Girish vs State By on 9 December, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ... JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10218 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
GIRISH NAYAK @ TATTOO GIRISH,
S/O. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT 8TH CROSS
post of Assistant Commandant, Central Armed Police Forces, as
a tattoo was noticed in the right arm and shoulder of the petitioner during his medical ... service
tenure in the Indian Navy, he was required to have some tattoo on his body. However,
due to the tattoo that had been engraved
infirmity pointed out in the medical examination
is the presence of a tattoo on his right forearm.
3. At the outset, learned counsel ... case, the issue is
very limited. The applicant had a tattoo on his right
forearm and the appropriate authority considered that
due to this distinctive
Union Bank Of India vs M/S Fusion Jewellery & Tattoos on 11 March, 2022
KABC020176252019
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES AT
BENGALURU ... Shivashankara A.,
Advocate)
Vs.
Defendant : M/s Fusion Jewellery & Tattoos
Shop B 24, Commercial Plaza,
Off. Commercial Street,
SCCH.13 2 22 SC.1016
lateral to left orbital margin. Margins are inverted and blackened. Blackening and tattooing of skin around in an area of 6 cm present underlying skull ... region. 3 cms above left ear margins blackened and inverted. Blackening and tattooing of skin around with singeing of hairs present. Injury
Parmeshwar Das @ Bhura vs State Of M.P. on 26 April, 2022
Author: G.S
