V.Varadaraj vs V.Karuppiah Nadar on 10 April, 2007
19.Further, in AMBUR STEEL TRADERS Vs. ENGINEER C.NOORULLA reported in
2002(3) CTC 96, it was observed that
when notice was despatched by post, the presumption is that it was served
unless it is proved that it was not really served and that he was not
responsible for such non-service. So, in this case, also it was found that if
the notice was refused to be accepted by the addressee, the presumption is that
notice was served on him.