Narcotics – Possession and Transport – Appellant convicted under Sections 15 and 25 NDPS Act for being co-owner of truck transporting poppy husk – No evidence appellant had knowledge of the transport – Conviction based on presumption under Section 35 without foundational facts proving knowledge [Paras 1-8].

Presumption and Burden of Proof – Section 25 NDPS Act requires evidence of knowledge – Prosecution failed to prove appellant knowingly allowed vehicle use for illegal purpose – Presumption under Section 35 requires initial burden of proof on prosecution to establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Review – Conviction based solely on incorrect address in truck registration insufficient to prove knowledge or involvement in narcotics transport – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 11].

Negotiable Instruments – Director’s Liability – Appellant resigned from directorship before issuance and dishonour of cheques – High Court dismissed revision applications to quash proceedings – Supreme Court quashed proceedings against appellant due to lack of connection with the company at the relevant time [Paras 1-21].

Evidence and Documentation – Resignation from Directorship – Appellant's resignation and its recording in Form No. 32 not disputed – Documents considered as public records indicating cessation of appellant's involvement in the company before the offence occurred [Paras 14-18].

Legal Principles – Scope of High Court's Power under Sections 482 and 397 CrPC – High Court can consider documents beyond suspicion at prima facie stage to prevent miscarriage of justice – Case distinguished from precedents requiring trial courts to consider defence during trial [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Calcutta High Court and summons issued by Metropolitan Magistrate set aside – Complaints against the appellant quashed [Para 21].

Civil Procedure – Ex-parte Decree – Respondent/wife failed to appear despite repeated summons – Process servers reported refusal to accept summons – Substituted service through publication in "National Herald" deemed proper – High Court erroneously set aside ex-parte decree considering post-decree conduct – Supreme Court restored trial court’s order dismissing application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [Paras 3-25].

Service of Summons – Presumption of Service – Registered AD cover and process server’s reports indicated refusal – High Court overlooked settled legal principles on presumption of service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Evidence Act [Paras 13-19].

Appellate Procedure – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – High Court failed to comply with statutory requirements in deciding the appeal – Judgment lacked consideration of material findings by trial court [Paras 20-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of Delhi High Court set aside – Judgment and order of trial court restored – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as lump sum maintenance to respondent in two installments within six months [Paras 24-25].

Motor Accident Compensation – Computation of Income –

Appeal concerning compensation awarded by MACT and revised by the High Court for the death of Mrs. Sunita Sharma. MACT’s deductions for HRA, CCA, and medical allowances were deemed incorrect by the Supreme Court, which also considered future prospects in income calculation [Paras 1-12].

Deduction for Personal Expenses –

Supreme Court held that a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses should be applied instead of the 40% applied by the lower courts, aligning with the precedent set in Smt. Sarla Verma [Paras 13-14].

Revision in Pay Scale – Future Prospects –

An addition of 30% for future prospects was allowed based on the age of the deceased, leading to a recalculated annual dependency and total compensation [Paras 15-16].

Compensation for Loss of Love and Affection –

The Supreme Court awarded additional compensation for loss of love and affection and consortium, emphasizing the necessity to attempt to quantify such intangible losses in monetary terms [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed to the extent indicated – Total compensation payable to the claimants-Appellants was fixed at Rs. 22,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to make the payment within three months [Paras 18-20].

Customs Duty – Warehousing and Interest –

Appeals addressing the final assessment of customs duty and interest for goods warehoused by the appellants beyond the permitted period. The Supreme Court upheld the levy of interest, rejecting the appellants' claim for exemption under the EPCG Scheme, due to the goods being deemed improperly removed from the warehouse [Paras 1-25].

Section 72 of the Customs Act – Improper Removal –

Goods that remain in the warehouse beyond the permissible period are deemed improperly removed. The proper officer can demand customs duty and interest from the expiry of the permissible period till the clearance of the goods [Paras 21-23].

EPCG Scheme – Exemption Not Applicable –

The benefit of duty exemption under the EPCG Scheme is only available for goods cleared under Section 68 of the Act within the permissible period. Goods deemed improperly removed under Section 72 do not qualify for this exemption [Paras 24-25].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – The High Court's decision to uphold the demand for customs duty and interest was affirmed. The appellants were directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 [Para 26].

Corporate Law – Amalgamation – Scheme of amalgamation between Sesa Industries Ltd. and Sesa Goa Limited sanctioned by the Company Judge – Division Bench of the High Court set aside the sanction citing procedural and disclosure deficiencies – Supreme Court restored the Company Judge's order sanctioning the amalgamation – Emphasized the need for disclosure of inspection reports and independent assessment by the Official Liquidator – Held that the Company Judge had all material facts before sanctioning the scheme despite lapses by the Official Liquidator [Paras 1-42].

Official Liquidator's Role – Disclosure Obligations – Criticized the Official Liquidator for not disclosing adverse findings from inspection reports – Highlighted the importance of the Official Liquidator's report in ensuring fair amalgamation processes – Stressed that the Official Liquidator acts as a watchdog for the Court, ensuring that company affairs are not prejudicial to members or public interest [Paras 38-40].

Procedural Compliance – Section 391 and 394 of Companies Act – Detailed the procedural requirements for sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation – Emphasized the need for sufficient disclosure to shareholders and independent reports from the Official Liquidator – Clarified the Court's role in ensuring the scheme is fair, just, and reasonable [Paras 32-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Company Judge’s order sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation restored – Liberty granted for continuation of any civil or criminal proceedings arising from the inspection and investigation reports [Para 42].

Motor Accident Compensation – Computation of Income –

Appeal concerning compensation awarded by MACT and revised by the High Court for the death of Mrs. Sunita Sharma. MACT’s deductions for HRA, CCA, and medical allowances were deemed incorrect by the Supreme Court, which also considered future prospects in income calculation [Paras 1-12].

Deduction for Personal Expenses –

Supreme Court held that a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses should be applied instead of the 40% applied by the lower courts, aligning with the precedent set in Smt. Sarla Verma [Paras 13-14].

Revision in Pay Scale – Future Prospects –

An addition of 30% for future prospects was allowed based on the age of the deceased, leading to a recalculated annual dependency and total compensation [Paras 15-16].

Compensation for Loss of Love and Affection –

The Supreme Court awarded additional compensation for loss of love and affection and consortium, emphasizing the necessity to attempt to quantify such intangible losses in monetary terms [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed to the extent indicated – Total compensation payable to the claimants-Appellants was fixed at Rs. 22,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to make the payment within three months [Paras 18-20].

Customs Duty – Warehousing and Interest –

Appeals addressing the final assessment of customs duty and interest for goods warehoused by the appellants beyond the permitted period. The Supreme Court upheld the levy of interest, rejecting the appellants' claim for exemption under the EPCG Scheme, due to the goods being deemed improperly removed from the warehouse [Paras 1-25].

Section 72 of the Customs Act – Improper Removal –

Goods that remain in the warehouse beyond the permissible period are deemed improperly removed. The proper officer can demand customs duty and interest from the expiry of the permissible period till the clearance of the goods [Paras 21-23].

EPCG Scheme – Exemption Not Applicable –

The benefit of duty exemption under the EPCG Scheme is only available for goods cleared under Section 68 of the Act within the permissible period. Goods deemed improperly removed under Section 72 do not qualify for this exemption [Paras 24-25].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – The High Court's decision to uphold the demand for customs duty and interest was affirmed. The appellants were directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 [Para 26].

Corporate Law – Amalgamation – Scheme of amalgamation between Sesa Industries Ltd. and Sesa Goa Limited sanctioned by the Company Judge – Division Bench of the High Court set aside the sanction citing procedural and disclosure deficiencies – Supreme Court restored the Company Judge's order sanctioning the amalgamation – Emphasized the need for disclosure of inspection reports and independent assessment by the Official Liquidator – Held that the Company Judge had all material facts before sanctioning the scheme despite lapses by the Official Liquidator [Paras 1-42].

Official Liquidator's Role – Disclosure Obligations – Criticized the Official Liquidator for not disclosing adverse findings from inspection reports – Highlighted the importance of the Official Liquidator's report in ensuring fair amalgamation processes – Stressed that the Official Liquidator acts as a watchdog for the Court, ensuring that company affairs are not prejudicial to members or public interest [Paras 38-40].

Procedural Compliance – Section 391 and 394 of Companies Act – Detailed the procedural requirements for sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation – Emphasized the need for sufficient disclosure to shareholders and independent reports from the Official Liquidator – Clarified the Court's role in ensuring the scheme is fair, just, and reasonable [Paras 32-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Company Judge’s order sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation restored – Liberty granted for continuation of any civil or criminal proceedings arising from the inspection and investigation reports [Para 42].