Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Kalu Ram Kole vs State Of Chhattisgarh 9 Mcrc/9466/2018 ... on 4 December, 2018
Observations of Kalu Ram's case (Supra) apply on
all force to the facts of this case. In the case in hand
also despite receipt of notice respondent did not care
to reply nor refuted the averments of demand of the
amount on the basis of the invoices/bills in question.
But the learned Trial Court failed to draw inference
against the respondent.
The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Division Of High Courts Act, 2015
Metropolis Travels & Resorts (I) Pvt. ... vs Shri Sumit Kalra And Anr. on 7 May, 2002
66) In a Division Bench proceedings of this
court reported in Metropolis Travels &
Resorts Vs. Sumit Kalra 98 (2002) DLT 573
(DB), no adverse inference was drawn
against the respondent for failure to reply the
legal notice on consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rakesh Kumar & Shri Shakti Kumar vs Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd on 7 March, 1988
In the judicial
precedents reported in Rakesh Kumar Vs.
Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. (1988) 2 SCC
165 & Hiralal Kapur Vs. Prabhu Chaudhary
(1988) 2 SCC 172 it was held by the Supreme
Court that a categorical assertion by the
landlord in a legal notice if not replied to and
controverted, can be treated as an admission
by a tenant.
Jagdish Singh vs Natthu Singh on 25 November, 1991
14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that
service of notice has been effected when it is sent to
the correct address by registered post. In view of the
said presumption, when stating that a notice has been
sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it
is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in
spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed
to have been served or that the addressee is deemed
to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the
contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice
is deemed to have been effected at the time at which
the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary
course of business. 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. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh
[(1992) 1 SCC 647 : AIR 1992 SC 1604] ; State of
M.P. v. Hiralal [(1996) 7 SCC 523] and V. Raja
Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu [(2004) 8 SCC 774:
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hiralal & Ors on 15 January, 1996
14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that
service of notice has been effected when it is sent to
the correct address by registered post. In view of the
said presumption, when stating that a notice has been
sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it
is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in
spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed
to have been served or that the addressee is deemed
to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the
contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice
is deemed to have been effected at the time at which
the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary
course of business. 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. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh
[(1992) 1 SCC 647 : AIR 1992 SC 1604] ; State of
M.P. v. Hiralal [(1996) 7 SCC 523] and V. Raja
Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu [(2004) 8 SCC 774: