Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23960 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007

V L Estate Pvt Ltd vs . Rakesh Bhandari on 26 August, 2014

In the light of aforecited observations made by Hon'ble Apex CC No. 1038/11 16/33 V L Estate Pvt Ltd Vs. Rakesh Bhandari Court, in the case of C .C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr (Supra), it can be safely concluded that the accused who does not make any effort to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of summons of the court cannot claim the benefit of the defence of non service of legal notice upon him. Moreover, in the present case, it has been admitted by the accused that the legal notice had been duly received by his son Mayank Bhandari. In the light of my foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the first arguments advanced by learned defence counsel that the accused deserves to be acquitted as he had not been served with any legal notice issued by the complainant before the filing of the present complaint whereby the complainant company had called upon him to make payment of the cheque amount.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Magadi Kempegowda Credit Co-Operative ... vs Sri Govinda K C on 27 November, 2025

21. Further defence of accused is, notice issued by the complainant was not served on accused. The accused contended that the said notice was returned with an endorsement of No Such Person. The mandatory service of notice is not complied. Hence, complaint is not maintainable. The accused relied on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court published in (2007) 6 SCC 555 between C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed. The Ex.P3 is office copy of legal notice. Ex.P4 is postal receipt. Ex.P5 is returned postal cover. Endorsement on Ex.P5 clearly shows that it was returned as No Such Person.
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subbulakshmi vs Natthu Singh ; State Of M.P. Vs. Hiralal & ... on 3 March, 2015

11.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555 (C.C.Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and another), wherein it was held that the course opens to drawer where he claims not to have received the notice sent by post but received copy of the complaint with the summons. Held, he can within 15 days of the receipt of the summons make payment of the cheque amount and on that basis submit to the Court that the complaint be rejected. He then cannot contend that there was no proper service of notice. It was further observed that once the payee of the cheque issues notice to the drawer of the cheque, the cause of action to file a complaint arises on the expiry of the period prescribed for payment by the drawer of the cheque. If he does not file a complaint within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, his complaint gets barred by time. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement refused or not available in the house or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in station, due service has to be presumed.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Cc No. 2817/10 Sbbj vs Veena Tripathi 1/13 on 23 June, 2012

21. Even otherwise,The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.C. Alvi Haji V. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. 2007 STPL(DC) 952 SC held that even if the accused didn't receive the legal demand notice he can pay the cheque amount within 15 days of service of summons from the court but if he fails, he can't contend that he has not received the legal demand notice. The relevant extract is reproduced herein below:-
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Purohit Cement Pvt.Ltd.Nagpur vs Satyanarayan Ramnath Gupta on 16 August, 2017

8. I would refrain from making any further observation lest the complainant or the accused is prejudiced. Suffice it to say, that the learned trial Court would be expected to record finding on whether the registered envelope was properly addressed and further on the import and implication of the postal endorsements and the permissibility of invoking the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, consistent with the exposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Others.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R B Deo - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next