Commissioner of Police Vs. Smt. Krishna Kumari - Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Decided on: Feb-07-2013

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

LAW: Right to Information Act, Section 3 of the Limitation Act, Section 21, the Review Applicant, the Review Applicant, Section 21, Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the Review Applicant, the Review Applicant, the Review Applicant

PERSON: G. George Paracken, Bench, Rashmi Chopra, Yogesh Sharma, Chandra Kanta, Habib, Meera Bhanya Vs, Tarit Ranjan Dass, Rashmi Chopra, Yogesh Sharma

CARDINAL: 1, 2.7.1997, 15, 19.11.1999, 138, 128, 3.7.2008, 2, 745, 2.7.1997.Â, three, 2, 554, 3, 4., 15, 11.8.2011, 8, 21.03.2002, 10.09.2011, 500, 160, 11, 12, 13.Â, 14.Â, 1, 2, 15

ORG: This Review Application, SC, SC, SC, SC, the Apex Court, SC, SC, SC, Applicant, OA No, SC/ST, the Original Application, Applicant, 3.Â, the Original Application, the Apex Court, R.K. Sabharwal, the Department of Personnel, Tribunal, SC, ST Officers Welfare Council, AIR 1997, the Apex Court, SC/ST, the Honble High Court, ATJ, Applicant, T.C. Verma v. Union of India, ATJ, CAT, SC, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, OA No.2462/2006, SC, No.14011/63/01, Tribunal, Tribunal, 19.5.2010, SC, R.K. Sabharwal's, SC, SC, Tribunal, SC, SC, Tribunal, 19.5.2010, the Original Application, the High Court, the Writ Petition, 19.5.2010, the Review Applicant, Tribunal, the Review Applicant, the Tribunal on the issue, SC, SC, this Review Application, 19.5.2010, Apex Courts, the Review Application, the Apex Court, Smt, Nirmala Kumar Chaudhary AIR 1995, Union of India Vs, the Apex Court, the Review Application, the Review Applicant, the Original Application, the Review Application, the Review Application, SC, SC, SC, SC, SC, Tribunal, OA No.2462/2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.7027/2010, the Honble High Court, Tribunal, the Honble High Court, Tribunal, the High Court, Tribunal, Review Application, the Honble High Court, the Review Application, the Original Application, the Writ Petition, Tribunal,   Review Application, CPC, Court of Small Causes, Court, the Appellate Court, this Review Application, this Review Application

LOC: Respondent

GPE: OA, R.K., OA, OA, OA, OA, U.P., Delhi, Mohit Yadav v. Union of India, OA, OA, OA, Delhi, OA, OA, OA, OA, RA, RA, Delhi, OA, OA, OA, Delhi, OA, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, OA

DATE: 19.05.2010, the year 1999, the year 1999, a period of, three months, the year 1999, 2005, the year 2004, 2462/2006, 2639/2008, 1995, 1451, 2003, 2006, the years 1999, 2005, 1995, 1985, the year 2005, the year 1999, 21.03.2002, 1999, 2.7.1997, the year 1999, the year 1999, the year 1999.Â, 2462/2006, the year 1999, 2005, 1999, 1985, the year 2005, the year 1999, No.14011/63-01, 1975, 2004

ORDINAL: 8th, 8th, firstly, Secondly, second, Thirdly, 8th, Secondly

EVENT: the Bombay Bench

PRODUCT: 247

WORK_OF_ART: the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the Review Applicant, the Writ Petition, The Review Applicant, The Review Applicant, the Review Applicant, the Review Applicant, the Review Applicant, the Review Applicant, the Writ Petition

FAC: the Writ Petition