Skip to content

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Mt. Sewti Vs. Rattan

Decided On : Apr-07-1951

Court : Himachal Pradesh

LAW: Article 91, Order 10 Rule 2, Article 91, Article, Article 120, Limitation Act, Article 120, Section 11, Section 11, Section 11

CARDINAL: ORDERChowdhry, 14, 2, 3., 4., 13, 3, 6, 26, 216, 42, 638, 423, 8., two, two, one, 9, 323, 629, two, 10, 14

LOC: Mt. Sewati, Expln

ORG: Rattan, Dharmu, Inche, Shaik Allie, unnecessary & Article

PERSON: Kumharsain, revsd, Dharmu, Noriah, A. I. R., Chetty v. Muniandi Servai, Narasagauda, Civil P. C., Dasi, Baidya Nath Naik, Civil P. C., Narendranath, Ananda Chandra, Civil P. C., Narayanan, Ali v. Chindan, Ct

GPE: Kasumpti, Expln, Subsequent, Zamorin

DATE: the year 1991, About eight years later, 22 10 1999 B., next day, 16) 1929, sis years, 60 cal, 1307, 22 Mad, 23 Mad

PERCENT: 35 I.

WORK_OF_ART: Beni Prasad Koeri v. Dudh

QUANTITY: 6-2-2004

ORDINAL: first

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