SHREYA SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA

5 SCC 1Reported decision2015#682 most cited
146

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India · section 61a · section 31(1) · section 32a · section 31 · section 32 · section 250 · section 143(3) · condonation of delay · company law · business income · nfac

Issues it is cited on

section 61asection 31(1)section 32asection 31section 32condonation of delaycompanysection 250section 143(3)indianfacbusiness

Judgments citing SHREYA SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA

Manjappagowda vs. State of Karnataka

WP/54914/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Adarsh Developers vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/35489/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Daadys Developers and Builders vs. State of Karnataka

WP/8035/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Smt. Pushpavathi vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/52566/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri. Srinivas V vs. The Tahsildar

WP/2960/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

H Kumaraswamy vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/51945/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Mrs Rosamma Varghese vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/27573/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Smt. Yashodhamma vs. The Commissioner

WP/13280/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri K R Krishnam Raju vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/7844/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Balasubramanya vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/5391/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

K. Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka

WP/55214/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

K S Dayanandshetty vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/53204/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Channappa vs. Sri. S Gopal

WP/6330/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Smt. Smitha Uday Kumar vs. State of Karnataka

WP/53008/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri S Anneyappa vs. State of Karnataka

WP/36640/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Arun. S vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/54035/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri K C Mahesha vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/35575/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri Sudhakar vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/20314/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri. Papu Gowda vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/33262/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

K Ravindra Reddy vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15257/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…