Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Prime Industries vs Rafeeq Ahmed on 7 April, 1997

Sh. Shoki Chaudhary vs Sh. Mukesh on 5 December, 2013

Even otherwise, the "tenant" has avoided receiving of the notice by registered AD post despite several visits of the postman which is deemed to have been served upon him and in this regard, the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Prime Industries vs. Rafeeq Ahmad 1997 (1) RCR 661 can be referred to. The witness PW­1 ("landlord") was cross examined by the "tenant" on 23.11.2010 and on 23.09.2011 but there is no cross examination by the "tenant" either on the point of rate of rent of Rs. 2,500/­ per month or on the point of arrears of rent since June 2006 and this testimony of the "landlord" went unrebutted and unchallenged. The "tenant" has also not put his defence in the cross examination of PW­1 that rate of rent has been Rs.1,000/­ per month or Rs.500/­ per month or he has paid the rent upto December 2007 or advancing of loan of Rs.75,000/­ to the "landlord". Similarly, the "tenant" has not cross examined PW­2 Sh. Ramesh on these points and the "tenant" has also not put his case in cross examination of PW­2.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh Prem Vohra vs Smt. Santosh Singhal Wd/O Sh. R.P ... on 9 June, 2011

If notice is not received back (in the case of Madan Lal Sethi v. Amar Singh Bhalla, 1980 (2) RCJ 543 (Delhi) = 1980 Raj. LR 693 = 18 (1980 DLT 427, Usha Mehra, J.; Prime Industries & others v. Rafeeq Ahmad, 1997(1) RCR (Rent) 661 (Delhi) : 67 (1997) DLT 121; Vinod Nagpal v. Bakshi S. Kuljas Rai, 1989 (2) RCR 154 = 1989 (2) RCR 298, (Delhi), Santosh Duggal, J) or received back with recipient's signature (in the case of M/s Green View Radio Service v. Laxmibai Ramji, AIR 1990 SC 2156 = 1990 (4) SCC 497 = JT 1990 (4) SC 54 = 1990(2) RCJ 459 = 1991 (1) RCR 54 = 1990 (2) Scale 533, P.B. Sawant & N.M. Kasiwal, JJ., D.O.D. 11-09-1990) then the presumption of service arises. This law is followed till date by the various Hon'ble High Courts.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Shiv Kumar Gupta vs M/S. Prakash Tent & Furnishing House on 28 July, 2011

The petitioner to prove the service of the Ex.PW1/2 has filed on record the documents Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5 and has also examined himself as well as PW2 and PW3 who have deposed that the concerned record pertaining to the service of the Ex.PW1/2 was weeded out by their department in due course. PW1 has deposed in his examination­in­chief that the Ex.PW1/5 bears the signature/initial of the respondent no.1. There is no question or suggestion put on behalf of the respondent no.1 to the PW1 in his cross examination to deny or suggest that the signature or initial at Ex.PW1/5 does not pertains to the respondent no.1. Therefore the said signature is deemed to be admitted by the respondent no.1. The petitioner has relied on a case titled as Prime Industries Vs. Rafiq Ahmed 1997. Rajdhani Law Reporter 432 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that if a notice of demand is sent by Registered Post as well as under postal certificate which is correctly addressed and report on Registered notice is avoiding service then notice sent under Postal Certificate should be deemed to be duly served vide presumption under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Ishwin Packaging vs M/S Samman Lal Sher Singh Jain on 31 March, 2010

In Prime Industries & Ors. Vs. Faeeq Ahmed 67 (1997) DLT M/s Ishwin Packaging Vs. M/s Samman Lal Sher Singh Jain & Others (Suit no.80/09) Page No. 8 of pages 12 1212, it was held that the notice sent by registered A.D post as well as UPC, the appellants avoided service of notice by registered post, the notice sent under the UPC, presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of Evidence Act. The notice sent at correct address of the firm. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that notice of demand properly served and it was sufficient compliance of provisions of law.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Amarjeet Singh vs M/S City Financial Consumer on 22 March, 2010

In Prime Industries & Ors. Vs. Faeeq Ahmed 67 (1997) DLT 1212, it was held that the notice sent by registered A.D post as well as UPC, the appellants avoided service of notice by registered post, the notice sent under the UPC, presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of Evidence Act. The notice sent at correct address of the firm. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that notice of demand properly served and it was sufficient compliance of provisions of law.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Delhi - 110007 vs Sh. Jagmohan Singh Bagga on 7 December, 2010

The court in judgment Prime Industries vs Rafeeq Ahmed reported as , '67 (1997) DLT 121' observed (5) Turning to the question whether notice of demand was served on the tenant or not, it is established on record that notice sent by registered Ad post dated 16th April,1980 Exhibit AW.I/2 was avoided by lhe appellant. Copies of that notice were also sent to appellants No.2 arid 3. They too avoided receipt of the same. As per Postal Authority's remark Suit No. 950/27 Page 10 on the envelope despite repeated visits and informations being given to the addressee they did not make themselves available to receive the notice. Hence the notices were returned as undelivered. The notice of demand was simultaneously sent under Certificate of posting because respondent found that the appellants were intentionally avoiding service. This was done in order to ensure that appellants are served with the notice of demand. The notice sent under Upc was proved on record as Exhibit AW.I/9. However, the name of appellants No.2 and 3's father was wrongly mentioned in the Upc as Mushtaq Ahmed. The real name of their father is Shaukat Ali Khan.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next