Skip to content

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Govt. of A.P. Vs. C. Prakash Goud and Others

Decided On : Aug-10-2001

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]

LAW: Article 14 of the Constitution and, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Section 585, Section 5(2, Section 6, the Corporations Act', Rule 10, Article 243T of the Constitution, Article 243-P(g, Article 226 of the Constitution this Court, Constitution, Article 243ZA, Constitution, Section 9, Article 243U of the Constitution, Constitution, Article 243-T, Section 5(2, Section 6, the Corporations Act, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Article 243K(3, Article 243K, Constitution, Constitution, Article 243U(3, Constitution, Article 243U(3)(a, Article 243U(3)(b, Article 243-U(3, Article 243-U(3).243-U. Duration of Municipalities, Article 243-U(3, Constitution, Article 243-U(3, Constitution, Section 271, Article 243-U(3, Constitution, a State Act, Constitution, Constitution, Article 243-T, Section 5(2, Section 6 of the Corporations Act, Article 243-U(3, Article 243-T, Article 243-T, Section 5(2)(b, Section 6 of the Corporations Act, Article 243ZA.35

PERSON: Rao, Articles 40, hereinabove.4, No.334, Elecs, Backward Classes, G. Ganayutham, Andhra Pradesh, Wednesbury, Mohammed Gazi v. State, AIR1993SC1048, Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Counsel, Judge.15, Articles 243-T(1, Articles 243R, Articles 243ZF, Panchayats, Panchayats, Panchayats, Anugrah Narain Singh v. State, Anugrah Narain Singh, Bench, Mohammed Gazi 's, Kumar Dey, Tarapada Dey, Gurusharan Singh, Earl T. Crawford, Herbert Broom, O. Chinnappa Reddy, J., Prabhakar Rao v. State of A.P., Wolf, Jowell, Greene, Wednesbury Corporation, Wednesbury, Ganayutham, Greenes

CARDINAL: 1, 31, 1-6-1993, 13, 143, II, 21, 23-6-2001, 12, 100, 6-8-2001, about 2846, 12, 5, one, 100, 3600, 23, 2, about 27.14, about 2846, 12, 23, 2, one, 4, 342, 2-8-2001, 24, 1-6-1993, 1-6-1993, 6, 243, 1, 6, 243U(1)(b, 243D, 243V, 243, 2, two, 12-8, 1-6-1993, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 21, 1, 243, 1996)6SCC303, 31-5-1994, 30-11-1995, 1., 26-11-1995, 2., 3., 22-11-1995, 446, 4., 26, 5., 6, 25, seven, 27, 1988]1SCR118, 1996]1SCR1154, 3, eight, 33, one third, two, only one, 2, 23, 6-8-2001, two, 60, 10-12-2001

ORG: Urban Development Department, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the State Election Commission, SEC, State, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Corporation, SEC, the State Government, Mandat Parishad Territorial, Zilla Parishad Territorial, the High Court, the High Court, the Additional Advocate-General, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the Government in Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Corporation, State, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/ Backward Classes, SC/ST/BC, the High Court, Prakasam District Sarpanchas Association, A.P., the State Government, BC, the State Government, Prakasam District Sarpanchas Association, the State Government, Reservation Rules, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Municipal Corporations, MPHS, Assembly, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, State, MPHS, Assembly, MPHS, Assembly, BC, Assembly, BC, Zonal, Corporation, BC, SEC, the State Government, Corporation of Hyderabad, Assembly Constituencies, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, State, State, Assembly Constituencies, State, State, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, SEC, SEC, Corporation of Hyderabad, Additional Advocate-General, Court, Court, The State Government, Additional Advocate-General, Court, SEC, Municipal Corporations, ST/SC/, BC, SEC, Additional Advocate-General, the Supreme Court, Union of India, Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Court, Pennar Delta Ayacutdars Association, the Supreme Court, AIR 1974 SC 1682, Court, the Supreme Court, Hotel Balaji v. State of Andhra Pradesh, SEC, SEC, the Reservation Rules, G.O. Ms., Commission, Court, the State Government, Court, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Additional Advocate-General, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the Reservation Rules, the Municipalities/Municipal Corporations, the Legislature of the State, the Government of the State, SEC, The State Legislature, The Government of the State, the Reservation Rules, ST/SC/BC, SEC, SEC, the Government of the State, SEC, ST/SC/BC, SEC, SEC, a High Court, Court, the Government of the State, SEC, Government, theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh, SEC, Reliance, the Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the Legislative Assembly of the State, Municipal Corporation, completed,--, The Supreme Court, State, State, the State Government, The Supreme Court, State, the Supreme Court, U.P., the State Government, U.P. The Allahabad High Court, State, Court, Allahabad, State, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the 2 Municipal Corporations, the 244 Nagar Palikas, Counsel for, the State Election Commission, the Supreme Court, Municipal Corporations and Municipalities, U.P., the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Court, New Delhi Municipal Committee, Courts, BC, BC, the Board of Trade, Court, the Supreme Court, Government, SEC, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Court, Enfield, Court, Council, Parliament, the Supreme Court, Court, State, State, ST/SC, Government, SC/ST/BC, the Election Commission, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Associated Provincial Picture Houses, KB 223, the Supreme Court, Tata Cellular, OM Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court, Tata Cellular, Court, Court, Government, SEC, MPHS, Assembly, Additional Advocate-General, BC, MPHS, Assembly, BC, BC, BC, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the State Election Commission, Government, BC, BC, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, SEC

ORDINAL: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, first, first, 3rd, 5th

DATE: 243P, 243R, 1992, about a decade, April, 1998, five months, 13-7-2001, 23-7-2001, 1955, 1994, 1995, the 2nd, 2001, 1991, 30 days, 7-8-2001, 15 days, another period of 31 days, 8 days, 60 days, 195 days, more than a decade, 195 days i.e., a period of ninety days, 90 days, 90 days, 2000)IILLJ648SC, 1974, 2000, 1999, 50 days, 35 days, 40 days, 90 days, five years of earlier duly, 195 days, 75 days, 243S, 195 days, 90 days, 1995, five years, five years, six months, less than six months, five years, six months, less than six months, five years, six months, six months, a decade, 31st July, 1995, 16-11-1995, 20-11-1995, 20-11-1995, 1995, 17-11-1995, tomorrow, tomorrow, 24-11-1995, about a decade, more than one year, 1974, 90 days, a period of, 90 days, the 1st, 90 days, 1967, 32, a period of, six months, the last about 10 years, 1995, 1948(1, 2001, 1948, 120 days, 120 days, a period of, 10 days, 10 days, a period of, 80 days, a period of, 40 days, 120 days, today, 23-7-2001, 60 days

GPE: Warangal Municipality, case.12, M.P., Municipality, Municipality, Municipality, Municipality, Municipality, Municipality, Municipality, the State of, Impoentia, India, Bradbury, London Borough, Bradbury, Ganayudham, Wednesbury, UK, India

NORP: Rules, Panchayat, Indian, B.

FAC: the Multi-Purpose Household Survey, Constitutional

LOC: Scheduled Castes, Indian Constitutional

EVENT: Wednesbury

PRODUCT: Article 243ZF

TIME: 17-11-1995

WORK_OF_ART: Wednesbury

View Full Judgment


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