Skip to content

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Hanuman Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Decided On : Dec-12-1957

Court : Rajasthan

LAW: Section 57, Section 40, the Indian Stamp Act, Section 40, Section 33, the Indian Stamp Act, the Indian Stamp Act, Section 57, the Indian Stamp Act, Section 33, Section 38, Section 40, Section 38, Section 49

PERSON: K.L. Bapna, Shri Murlidhar Mansinghka, Hanuman Prasad Murlidhar, Murlidhar Mansinghka, Hanuman Prasad, Hanuman Prasad, Hanuman Prasad, Mansinghka, Hanuman Prasad Murlidhar, Registrar, Bhilwara, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.(3, 650/-, Tehsildar, Kumar Sharma, Seth Hanuman Prasad, Bhilwara, Seth Hanuman Prasad, Collector, Vishun Shankar, Bachan Devi, Janak Dulari, Courtobserved

NORP: J.1, Indian, Hundi, Sd/-Hanuman, Indian

DATE: 11th September, 1951, the age of 18 years, 8th day of September, 1951, 8th day of September, 1951, September, September, 2/-, 2nd July, 1952, 12th January, Thirty thousand six hundred and twenty, about 22nd January, 1953, three days, 8th September, 1951, September, 1951, three days ago, September, 1951

ORG: Seth Hanuman Prasad, Murlidhar Mansinghka, Shri Mansinghka Oil Mills Ltd., Shri Mansinghka Oil Mills Ltd., Rupees, Shri Mansinghka Oil Mills Ltd., Mansinghka, Tehsildar, Hanuman Prasad, Tehsildar, a Public Office, Tehsildar, the Board of Revenue, The Board of Revenue, the Collector under Section 40, Board, the Board of Revenue, The Board of Revenue, Court, Seth Hanuman Prasad, Registrar, the Board of Revenue, Seth Hanuman Prasad, The State of Bihar, SB, Babu Durga Prasad, Dulari Kuar, Babu Durga Prasad, the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue

CARDINAL: three, three, three, three, 1, three, three, 1951.Before, 3/-, 3/-, 3,.000/-, 10, 29,970/-, 30,620/-, 30,620/-, 5, Two, 2, 1, 2, three, three, 14, one, 5, 13

GPE: Bhilwara(Rajasthan State, Bombay, Bombay, Bombay, Rajasthan, Tehsil Bhilwara

ORDINAL: 11th

FAC: Shrimati Bachan Devi

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