Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 31 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2024-03-05 allowed

SUMAN L. SHAH vs THE CUSTODIAN & ORS

Bench: 2 — Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta

In Brief

Suman L. Shah and Laxmichand Shah borrowed money from three companies in 1996-1997, which were later found to be benami entities of a person notified under the Special Court Act, 1992. The Custodian sought recovery from the appellants as supposed garnishees of the notified debtor. The Special Court ordered repayment despite the appellants' claim that they had repaid the loans. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that properties attach only from the date of notification (October 2001), not earlier. The Custodian failed to prove the debt existed and subsisted using proper evidence—the Income Tax Department communication was unreliable and unexamined. The appellants' assertion of repayment was reasonable and not rebutted by the Custodian's primary case. The appeals were allowed and deposited amounts ordered returned.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Special Court Procedure Evidence Law Burden of Proof Asset Recovery Securities Transactions Benami Companies Garnishee Proceedings Civil Procedure

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login