Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Ld. defence counsel relied upon the decision given by High Court of Madras in case titled as S.S. Ummul Habiba vs. B. Rajendran cited as 2005 (1) JCC (NI) 35, wherein it was laid down that the return of postal cover as "intimated; unclaimed" by itself would not amount to constructive notice when it is averred by complainant in the complaint that accused is evading the service. However, Apex Court in the case titled as Srindhar M.A. vs. Metalloy N. Steel Corporation reported as 2000 (1) S.C.C. 397, held that presumption of deemed service is not a matter of course in all the cases and deemed service is to be accepted in the facts of the each case. Now, considering the facts of the present case and evidence led by CW2, it appears to me that complainant is entitled to claim benefit of presumption of deemed service of legal notice on accused.