Skip to content

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

United Commercial Bank Vs. Madan Mohan Dide

Decided On : Dec-01-1999

Court : Mumbai

LAW: the Companies Act, the Indian Contract Act, section 141, the Indian Contract Act, the Contract Act, Section 140 of the Contract Act, P-5, P-6, Section 141, the Indian Contract Act, Section 141, the Indian Contract Act, Section 140, the Indian Contract Act, Section 141, the Indian Contract Act, the Contract Act, the Contract Act, the Companies Act

PERSON: F.I. Rebello, J.1, Registrar, Rs, liquidaiton, PW-2 S. G. Oke, Nos, Exhibit P-112, Chandradhar Goswami, Yumnam Gouramani, G. C. Dey, Ex P-20, Nos, Nos, Panaji, Chistovan Vaz v., Chitranjan Rangnath Raja, Juggilal Kamlapat, AIR1982Delhi487, Panaji Bench, Ali Mohamed, Yogeshwar Kant Wadhera

ORG: Artwood Products Private Limited, Company Petition No, the Reserve Bank of India, Registrar, Rs.2,00,000, Pune, M/s. Artwood Products Pvt. Ltd., Pune, Bhandup, M/s. Artwood Products P. Ltd., M/s. Artwood Products Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Artwood Product Pvt. Ltd., Products Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Artwood products Pvt. Ltd., PW1 C.S. Raman, P-l, P-l, P-110, DW-1, P-110, Artwood Products Pvt, M/s. Artwood Private Ltd., M/s. Artwood Private Ltd., Shri C.S. Raman, P-l, P-110, Gauhati Bank Ltd., the Bankers Book Evidence Act, the Bankers Books Evidence Act, the Bankers Books Evidence Act, State Bank of India, United Industrial Bank Ltd., the Calcutta High Court, Pune, P-8, P-9, P-110, Central Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank, Division Benches, the State Bank of Saurashtra, State Bank of Saurashtra, the Division Benches, the Division Benches, the Delhi High Court, Citibank, Jute Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi High Court, Chitty on Contracts, the Privy Council, London Bank Ltd., the Madras High Court, A.R. Krishnaswami Aiyar v., Travancore National Bank Ltd., AIR 1940 Mad 437, the Delhi High Court, the Madras High Court, the Privy Council, Central Bank of India, Bank of India, Union of India v. Ct, Haryana High Court, Haryana High Court, Madras High Court, Union of India v. Ct

DATE: 1956, July 12,1976, 1975, January 13, 1971, quarterly, January 13, 1971, January 13, 1971, January 13, 1971, January 13, 1971, 1872, August/September, 1973, September 8, 1973, 1971, June 30, 1975, June 26, 1975, December 31, 1975, December 25, December 3, 1975, December 4, 1975, December 3, 1975, October 1, 1974, June 30, 1975, June 25, 1975, December 31, 1975, September 1, 1976, June 30, 1976, May 11, 1976, September 3, 1976, September 3, 1976, September 3, 1976, 13,730.97.11, July 12, 1976, December 9, 1975, January 13, 1971, December 3, 1974, September 8, 1973, April 30, 1976, April 30, 1976, November 19, 1981, December 8, 1977, February 26, 1979, April 14, 1979, January 13, 1971, September 8, 1973, April 30, 1976, 10, 12, April 30, 1976, September 8, 1973, April 30, 1976, April 30, 1976, 4, September 8, 1973, January 31, 1971, three years, July 12, 1976, April 8, 1976, December 9, April 30, 1976, April 8, 1976, July 25, 1975, April 30, 1976, April 30, 1976, July 25, 1975, September 8, 1973, September 8, 1976, April 30, 1976, September 8, 1973, September 9, 1976, September 7, 1976, September 1, 1976, the year 1971, September 8, 1973, September 7, 1973, June 28, 1973, December 25, 1975, December 31, 1975, December 25, 1975, December 2, 12, January 13, 1971, 16, April 30, 1976, April 30, 1976, April 30, 1976, January 13, 1971, September 8, 1973, September 8, 1973, June 30, 1975, June 30, 1975, October 20, 1975, December 31, 1975, July 1, 1976, PW 1, April 30, 1976, April 30, 1976, 1014, 4803, '39, 1993, 1092, 1978, 1978, '41

CARDINAL: 582, 2,00,000, 10, 2,00,000, 2,50,000, 8,00,000, 133, 134, 135, 139, 141, 4,00,000, 9,50,000, 2,50,000, 4,00,000, 9,54,000, 3,25,325.20, 3,29,117.89, 1975.6, 42,500, 1, 42,500, 34,000, 25,500, 13,718.59.8, 9,50,000, 18,099.80, 3,41,374.47, 1, 2, 8,00,000, 40,000, 2,00,000, three, 4, 9.5, 1,18,000, 1,16,000, 3,73,841.06, 2, 3., 1 and 26, 4., 5., 4, 2, 24, 6, 3 and 24, 8, 16, 8, 13, 14, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 3, 5, 6, 3.22, 3, 1975.Considering, 9, 3, 4, 5.23, 4, 5, two, 5, 4, 4, 5, 6, 3 and 24, 6, 1, 2, 3,41,947.59, 13,755.75, 111, 26, 3,29,117.89, 25,500, 1, 2.28, 1, 2, 1999.29, 7, 8, 16, 8, 10, 2.5, 4, 12, 1, 2, two, 8, 8, 13, 14, 13, 11, 12, 34,000, 34,000, 21, 25,500, 9, 10, 11, 12, two, two, 1998(2)BomCR244, 1998(2)BomCR522, two, 1980]3SCR915, 1980]3SCR915, 133, 134, 135, 139, 141, 38, II, 539, 1900, 27, 168, 1940, 10, 48, 640, 48, 640, transferee, 11 and, 12, 3,73,841.05, 3,73,205.24

MONEY: 5 per cent, 5 per cent, 12 per cent

GPE: Companies.2, Hodges v. Delhi

PRODUCT: P-72, P-32, P-21, P-13, P-21, P-32, P-32, P-21, P-21, P-21, P-21, P-13, P-21, P-3, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-22, P-21, P-22, P-23, P-29, P-30, P-31, P-13, P-21, P-21, P-13, P-21, P-32, P-32, P-13, P-21, P-13, P-21, P-30, P-30, P-31, P-31, P-21

ORDINAL: firstly, first, first, first, first, first, 24th

FAC: P-112, Mahadev Rama Bhonsle

LOC: case.27

EVENT: PW 1, PW 2

NORP: Punjab, Punjab

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //