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].

Land Acquisition – Additional Compensation – The Respondents were awarded compensation for acquired land along with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 – The Executing Court and the High Court awarded additional amount under Section 23(1A) on the solatium amount – Supreme Court clarified that the additional amount under Section 23(1A) is payable only on the market value of the land and not on the solatium [Paras 1-9].

Compensation Components – Section 23 of the Act outlines four distinct amounts: (i) Market value of the land, (ii) Damages/expenses under Section 23(1), (iii) Additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23(1A), (iv) Solatium at 30% under Section 23(2) – No judicial exercise involved for additional amount or solatium as they are statutory benefits [Paras 4-6].

Interest and Enhanced Compensation – Clarified interpretation of additional amount and solatium as part of 'enhanced compensation' for Income Tax purposes as per Commissioner of Income Tax Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) – Distinguished from interpretations under the Land Acquisition Act [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Executing Court orders set aside – Declared that additional amount under Section 23(1A) is only on the market value determined under Section 23(1) and not on solatium under Section 23(2) [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Conviction under Section 304B IPC upheld – Appellants (mother-in-law and husband) harassed the deceased, Kanta, for dowry (motorcycle) – Kanta died by hanging within three months of marriage – Evidence established harassment and demand for dowry – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Dowry Demand – Definition and Scope – Demand for motorcycle for business purposes held to be 'demand for dowry' – Reiterated that 'dowry' under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act includes any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with marriage [Paras 11-16].

Evidence and Presumption – Section 113B of Evidence Act – Presumption of dowry death applied – Appellants failed to rebut the presumption – Evidence from prosecution witnesses (PW-8, PW-9, PW-10) found credible [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment for both appellants upheld – Two months’ time granted to the first appellant (A-1) to surrender for undergoing the sentence [Para 20].

Customs Duty – Refund Claim – Appellant's claim for refund of customs duty rejected by Deputy Commissioner on grounds of unjust enrichment and failure to appeal assessment orders – Delhi High Court directed customs authorities to consider refund claims based on Essentiality Certificates – Supreme Court held that the refund claim was erroneously rejected ignoring High Court's specific directions [Paras 1-20].

Judicial Hierarchy and Compliance – High Court’s orders under Article 226 must be followed by subordinate authorities – Adjudicating authority circumventing High Court's order amounts to denial of justice – Subordinate authorities must approach the issuing court for clarification or modification if they believe the order is contrary to law [Paras 15-19].

Principles of Mandamus – High Courts have wide powers under Article 226 to issue writs to promote justice – Directions issued must be complied with unless legally challenged – Courts have the power to mould reliefs to meet the requirements of justice [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Customs authorities directed to consider the appellant's refund claim in accordance with the directions issued by the Delhi High Court – No costs awarded [Paras 20-21].

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].