SHREYA SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA

The Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S. Aol Online India Pvt. Ltd

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

…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…

Satish N vs. State of Karnataka

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

…223 221. Moreover, even if such an interpretation is offered by the learned Additional Advocate General, such an interpretation may not be adhered to by the licensing authority or its officials. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [ (2015) 5 SCC 1] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that a limited interpretation of a vast and undefined term by the Government cannot be accepted by the court. Since Rule 11 (1) (e) of the Aggregator Rules suffers from vagueness, it is unconstitutional. The Aggregator Rules and other Laws: 222. Mr. Sajan Poovayya's last plank of attack…

Khaleel Ahmed K R vs. State of Karnataka

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,K.NATARAJAN

…rt in case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2004)3 SCC 349, in case of Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others reported in (2010)9 SCC 655 and in case of State of Punjab Vs. Salil Sabhlok and others reported in (2013)5 SCC 1. He further submitted that though the examinations are conducted in the years 1998 and 1999, the appointment orders were issued only in the year 2006 whereas the writ petition is filed in the year 2012 i.e., 6 years after the appointment. Therefore, he relies on the judgment in case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd., Vs. M.A.Rasheed and others…

M/S. Modipon Fibre Company vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Meerut

…rice. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of IDL Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (1997) 5 SCC 311; MRF Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in (1997) 5 SCC 104; J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer reported in (1994) 4 SCC 276; Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian and ors. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 1 and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Bihar and ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 642. 6. Dr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted t…

Commnr. of Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Shatrushailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja

…whatsoever, it does not follow that there was no appeal pending before the Court. To the same effect is the law laid down by the judgment of this Court in the case of Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 1, in which it has been held that an appeal does not cease to be an appeal though irregular and incompetent. For the aforestated reasons, orders of the designated authority rejecting the declarations filed by the assessee are quashed. We do not find any infirmity, to this extent, in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is…