Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 8 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
V. Raja Kumari vs P. Subbarama Naidu & Anr on 2 November, 2004
9. So, there is a clear and cogent declaration in Raja Kumari's case that notice can be deemed to be served only if the sendee does not prove that notice was actually not served on him and that he was not responsible for the non-service. In other words, in a case where there is clear proof for the fact that notice was actually not served on the sendee and that none of the acts of the accused has contributed to the non-service, it may follow that notice cannot be deemed served. On the mere proof of the facts that the notice was sent in correct address, Court cannot rush to conclude deemed service of notice.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Fakirappa vs Shiddalingappa And Anr. on 7 November, 2001
19. But the fact that notice was despatched is not under dispute. Petitioner has also no case that notice sent to him was not in his correct residential address. But he would contend that notice under Section 138(b) was not served on him and that non-service was due to reasons beyond his control and that he was not in any way responsible for the same. In such circumstances, in the light of the discussions already made by me in the earlier paragraphs, the Trial Court will have to decide whether there was actual service or not and whether petitioner was in any way responsible for non-service etc., after adducing evidence. It is only after appreciation of the relevant facts and evidence that the Court can conclude whether notice can be deemed served or not. It cannot at any rate be done at the initial stage. Learned Counsel for the first respondent also cited a decision in Fakirappa v. Shiddalingappa, 2002 Crl.L.J. 1926 Karnt., in support of the contention that no interference can be made by the Court on the service of notice, before adducing evidence.
1