Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PALLAV SHETH versus CANARA BANK

Decided
13 April 2016
Judges listed
DIPAK MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 272 · 2016 INSC 313
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (page_count_mismatch). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This is an appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions. in Securities)Act, 1992, directed against the final judgment and order dated 17.10.2005 of the Special Judge in Special Case No. 1 of 2002.

p. 273, margin B

2

In view of nature of the order proposed to be passed in this appeal, it is not necessary to go into the details of the evidence. ltwould suffice to notice that there was no serious dispute raised on behalf of the appellant that he was liable to pay the agreed price of Rs.83,00,000/- for 20000 shares which were not returned to the respondent-bank. In fact the appellant had admitted the liability and issued cheques to meet it but the cheques were not honored. The defence of the appellant that such liability was only a civil liability without any criminal intention was not accepted by the learned Special Court. After discussing the relevant materials it held that dishonest misappropriation of those shares on the part of the accused is writ large. While rejecting the defence of the accused that there was no criminal intention on his part in not paying the amountofRs.83,00,000/-, the learned Judge, Special Court in paragraph 23 of the judgment under appeal has given lucid account of relevant facts for reaching at such conclusion. Para 23 runs as follows: "23. In this view of the matter, I do not find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the accused. Dishonest intention is quite clear and it is since beginning of the transaction. It is on the representation of the accused that 20000 shares alongwith blank share transfer forms, duly signed by the Authorised Officer, were delivered to the representative of the accused, against post dated cheques, that was al so as per the market practice. What is pertinent to be noted is that the cheque was post dated, the transaction took place on 2"' April, I 992. The delivery of the shares and blank · share transfer forms against the post dated cheque was made on 5.6. I 992, the cheque was post dated of 20.06. I 992. Before the (iv) In case the settlement amount is not paid by the appellant in the manner and to the extent indicated above, then after six months this order shall stand recalled·and the appellant shall surrender to serve out the remaining period of sentence of RI for six months as per the judgment under appeal which shall then stand confirmed by this Court. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

pp. 273–274, margin C