Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Surajmull Ghanshyamdas vs Samadarshan Sur on 9 May, 1968

A. Govindraj Goud vs Vikranthi And Co. on 11 February, 2004

11. I had given my careful and anxious consideration to the findings recorded by both the Courts below on the aspect of service of notice. The office copy of Notice issued by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-defendant for terminating the tenancy was marked as Ex.A-5 through PW-1 and PW-1 also deposed that he had sent a notice under Certificate of posting and also through registered post. The receipt of Certificate of posting under Ex.A-6 shows that the appellant-defendant received the said notice sent under certificate of posting, and deliberately had got returned the notice sent by registered post and the returned cover was marked as Ex.A-7. It is evident that appellant-defendant-tenant having been unsuccessful in both the Courts below at the second appellate stage intends to raise a question stating that in view of the confusion in specifying the mulgie numbers both 2-10178 and 2-10179, in fact, service of notice was not effected and this would amount to mentioning wrong number and hence, no presumption definitely can be drawn in favour of service of notice on the party in accordance with Section 106(2) of the Act. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of Surajmull Ghanshyamdas v. Samadarshan (supra) cited, the Division Bench at page 110 held as hereunder:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prakashchand Lunia vs Income-Tax Officer on 23 June, 1995

Similarly, a report regarding refusal by the addressee to take delivery of the letter may be rebutted by the addressee in the same way. But where the postman has returned the posted letter with the endorsement left', such endorsement itself suggest that delivery or tender of the letter could not be made on the addressee. The very endorsement itself, thus, would rebut the presumption created under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in favour of the service of the posted letter on the addressee. This view finds support from the Calcutta High Court decisions in the cases of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Surajmull Ghanshyamdas (supra). Since in the present case, the postman had returned the notices sent by the Tribunal to the applicant with the endorsement 'left', no effective service of the notice on the applicant took place. Once the service of the notice of hearing is held to have not been effected as per requirement of Rules 19 & 20 of the Rules, 1963, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal for the absence of the applicant. Where the service of notice was not found in accordance with the law it cannot be said that the assessee had been given a proper opportunity to put forward his case as required by Rule 20 of the Rules, 1963. The question, therefore, arises whether the application of the applicant dismissed for his absence may be restored for hearing. If so, under what provisions of law ?
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pattidhar Saw Mill vs Bimal Krishna Pal And Anr. on 26 March, 1976

In Surajmull Ghanshyamdas v. Samadarshan Sur, it was held that the tenancy, in any event, has to be determined under the Transfer of Property Act or under the contract of lease but in addition requirements of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act have also to be complied with. It is difficult to reconcile this decision as also the definition of 'thika tenant' in Section 2 (5) with provisions of Section 4 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act which provides in Clauses (a) and (b) for notices expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. Be that as it may, in the petition for ejectment the tenancy was described as carrying a rent of Rs. 200/- according to Bengali month. There is no denial by the tenant petitioner of the allegation about the tenancy as alleged in the petition in the written objection nor was any issue framed or evidence led to establish that the tenancy was otherwise or one from year to year as a manufacturing lease, provision of Section 106, which provides for deeming a manufacturing lease as being from year to year, will be applicable, as its terms indicate, in the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take a contrary position which involves questions of fact, for the first time in this Court I accordingly hold that the notice is valid in the attending circumstances and there is no dispute about its service.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madan & Co vs Wazir Jaivir Chand on 28 November, 1988

Shri Soli Sorabjee, learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the safeguards in Ss. 11 and 12 of the Act are intended for the benefit and protection of the tenant and that, therefore, where the Act provides for the service of the notice, by post, this requirement has to be strictly complied with. He referred to the decisions in Hare Krishna Das v. Hahnemann Publishing Co. Ltd ., [ 1965-66] 70 C.W.N. 262 and Surajmull Ghanshyamdas v. Samadarshan Sur, ILR 1969--1 Cal. 379 to contend that such postal service can neither be presumed nor considered to be good service where the letter is returned to the sender due to the non- availability of the addressee. He urges that, in the absence of any enabling provision such as the one provided for in s.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, service by some other mode, such as affixture, cannot be treated as sufficient compliance with the statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 409 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Macquarie Bank Limited vs Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd on 15 December, 2017

Ltd.[(1965-66) 70 Cal WN 262] and Surajmull Ghanshyamdas v. Samadarshan Sur [AIR 1969 Cal 109 : ILR (1969) 1 Cal 379] to contend that such postal service can neither be presumed nor considered to be good service where the letter is returned to the sender due to the non-availability of the addressee. He urges that, in the absence of any enabling provision such as the one provided for in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, service by some other mode, such as affixture, cannot be treated as sufficient compliance with the statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 95 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Mohd. Furqan vs A.D.J. Ayodhaya Prakarn Lucknow on 31 May, 2024

"4. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the safeguards in Sections 11 and 12 of the Act are intended for the benefit and protection of the tenant and that, therefore, where the Act provides for the service of the notice, by post, this requirement has to be strictly complied with. He referred to the decisions in Hare Krishna Das v. Hahnemann Publishing Co. Ltd. [(1965-66) 70 Cal WN 262] and Surajmull Ghanshyamdas v. Samadarshan Sur [AIR 1969 Cal 109 : ILR (1969) 1 Cal 379] to contend that such postal service can neither be presumed nor considered to be good service where the letter is returned to the sender due to the non-availability of the addressee. He urges that, in the absence of any enabling provision such as the one provided for in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, service by some other mode, such as affixture, cannot be treated as sufficient compliance with the statute.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Mathur - Full Document
1