Skip to content

Goodwill India Ltd. Vs. the State - Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Decided On : Apr-29-1979

Court : Delhi

LAW:

Section 21(1, Constitution, Article 246(4, Article 246(3, Constitution, Constitution, Article 246(4, Article 246(4).2, Article 246(4, Section 2(g, Section 2(g, Section 27 of the Act, Section 27, Article 286 of the Constitution, Article 286, Section 2(g, Section 2(g, Section 4(2, Section 2(h, Section 2(g, Section 2(g, Constitution, Constitution, Section 2(h, Section 2(i, Section 4 of the Act, Section 5(2, Section 2(g, Section 20(3, Section 2(g, Section 2(g, Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution, Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution and, Article 226, Constitution, Constitution, Section 2(g, Constitution, Article 246(4, Article 286, Article 226, Article 226, Section 2(g

ORG:

V.S. Deshpande, the Bengal Finance, Parliament, State Legislatures, the State Legislature, the State List, the Provincial List, the Government of India Act, Parliament, Union, Parliament, Parliament, State, the State List, the State List, Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Provincial List, the Government of India Act, the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, Parliament, the State Legislature, the State List of the Seventh Schedule, Parliament, the Sale of Goods Act, the Sale of Goods Act.3, The Bengal Finance, follows:'Sale, the Union Territory of Delhi, Installment Supply, Union of India, the Supreme Court, Union, Reports, the Supreme Court, Coimbatore, the Supreme Court, the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the State Legislature, the State Legislature, State, Installment Supply Ltd., Sales Tax Officer, the Supreme Court, the Bengal Finance, Installment Supply, the Union Territory of Delhi, the Union Territory of, Sections 3, the Central Sales Tax Act, the Union Territory, the Central Sales Tax Act, State, State, Parliament, State, Parliament, the Central Sales Tax Act, the Bengal Finance, the Central Sales Tax Act.10, State, State, Installment Supply Ltd., Sales Tax Officer, Installment Supply, Union of India, the Supreme Court, the Central Sales Tax Act, the Union Territory of, Installment, Installments, Act, Installment Supply, K.L. Johar, Installments, Installment Supply, Installments, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the K.L. Johar and, State, The Supreme Court, Installments, State, State, Parliament, State, Parliament, State, K.L. Johar and Co., Installment Supply, K.L. Johar and Co., Parliament, Union, the K.L. Johar and, Installment Supply, Installments, Financial, Financial, Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Court, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Union, Installment Supply Ltd., Sales Tax Officer, Installment Supply, Union of India, State, State, the K.L. Johar and, Tribunal, Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty, Lordships, the Supreme Court, Bata Shoe Co. Ltd., City of Jabalpur Corporation, Shri B.N. Lokur, Tribunal, Court, Thansingh Nathmal, the Supreme Court, the High Court, Court, Court, the Supreme Court, Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the High Court, the High Court, Court, Tribunal, the Supreme Court, Installment Supply, Union of India, Clauses, Court, Court, the Supreme Court, Calcutta Discount Company Ltd., Court, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Tribunal

DATE:

1941, 1935, 92A, 1958, 1935, 1930, 1958, 1941, 1975, October, 1959, 1st October, 1959, 1961, 1st October, 1959, 1974, October, 1959, 1st October, 1959, 4, 1956, 1956, 1st October, 1959, 1974, 1961, 1976, the...day, monthly, Forty-ninth Amendment, 1979, 1973, 1958-59, between 24th October, 1956, 31st March, 1958, 1st April, 1958, 2nd June, 1977, 1977, 1974, 32 of 1973, 1st April, 1958, September, 1958, 1st April, 1958, the same financial year, 1st April, 1958, 3rd June, 1958, the year 1958-59, 1st April, 1958, between 1st April, 1958, 30th September, 1958, 1958-59.31, 13 of 1973, 14 of 1973, 15 of 1973, under Section 21(1, 1976, 1975]1SCR386, March, 1976, 1976, 1975]99ITR375(Delhi, 1975

CARDINAL:

two, 1, 2, 54, 48, two, 54, 9, 353, 48, 54, 9, 417, 54, 2, one, 12, 489, two, 499, 1965, 16, 213, 54, 34, 1961, 12, 489, two, 5, 34, 65, 12, 489, two, 37, 207, two, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 14, 4, 4., 2, one, two, two, two, one, 1961, 12, 489, 492, 1965, 16, 213, 1961, 12, 489, 1965, 16, 213, 1, two, 1965, 16, 213, 1961, 12, 489, 1965, 16, 213, 1962]2SCR644, two, two, 5, 1958.26, 6, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 16, 27, 1959]1SCR445, 1959]1SCR445, 433, 434, 435, 1962]2SCR644, three, 1968]3SCR662, 1963]50ITR93(SC, 1977]3SCR182, 1964]6SCR654, 1, 1971]82ITR147(SC, 1970]78ITR26(SC, 1970]78ITR26(SC, 3, 3, 1962]2SCR644, 1, 2, 1961]41ITR191(SC, 7, 1961]41ITR191(SC

GPE:

India, Mithan, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, the State of Delhi, the State of Delhi, the State of Delhi, Explanationn, Delhi, Explanationn, Explanationn, States, States, Balabhagas, Orissa, Delhi, New Delhi, States, S.T.R., S.T.R. No. 4 of 1973, S.T.R., S.T.R., S.T.R., S.T.R., S.T.R., Mithan, Delhi, S.T.R. Nos, Delhi, jurisdiction.33, Dhulabhai, S.C.R., Dhulabhai, I.L.R., States, restored.38

PERSON:

Madras, Gannon Dunkerley, Lal v. State, K.L. Johar, Randhir Chawla, Randhir Ghawla, Bill, K.L. Johar, Shri Randhir Chawla, Randhir Chawla, Lal v. State, Chandra-chud, J., A. Mazid, Gee Vee Enterprises, Sheo Nath Singh v., L. Hirday Narain v. Income-tax

WORK_OF_ART:

the Sale of Goods Act

ORDINAL:

1st, 1st, Firstly, Secondly, second, third, second, first, first, Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly

MONEY:

40 per cent

PRODUCT:

Lordship

TIME:

Forty-second Amendment) Act, Forty-second Amendment) Act

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