Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tea Auction Ltd vs Grace Hill Tea Industry And Anr on 13 September, 2006
In support, reliance was placed upon the judgment of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Tea Auction Ltd. vs. Grace Hill Tea Industry
and Anr., AIR 2007 SC 67.
Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011
12.0 In the present case, the address of the appellant/identity of the
property at which the summons were sent by registered post/ affixed, is not
disputed. As noted above, the summons sent through registered/speed post
for 05.05.2018, were returned as refused (lene se inkaar kiya). Refusal is
due service. As directed, the summons were also duly affixed (on
26.04.2018) on a wall near the iron gate of the given address, which is not
disputed. Thus, there is a legal presumption of due service on the appellant.
While dealing with presumption of service by registered post at the correct
address/refusal to receive the same, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Parimal
vs. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545, observed :
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 November, 2010
Manju Jain, AIR 2000 SC 2306, held that in view of the
provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897,
there is a presumption that the addressee has received the
letter sent by registered post at correct address. However,
the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of
evidence of impeccable character. Similar view came to be
reiterated by the apex Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar
Sambhudayal Gupta vs. Stae of Maharashtra, (2010) 13
SCC 657.
Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani on 31 March, 1989
In Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal
Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
held that :
Basant Singh & Anr vs Roman Catholic Mission on 3 October, 2002
14.1 It may be mentioned that the process-server‟s report (as reproduced in
para 7.0 above) is on the lines as provided for under High Court Rules
followed by his statement on oath that the report given by him is correct.
After considering the said report, the Ld. Trial Court recorded its satisfaction
about due service. Non-filing of affidavit strictly in the prescribed form may
be a mere irregularity. It would be pertinent to mention here that second
Signature Not Verified
FAO 144/2023 Page 11 of 14
Digitally Signed By:GEETA
JOSHI
proviso to Order IX rule 13 CPC casts an embargo on the court that a decree
passed ex-parte shall not be set aside merely on the ground that there has
been an irregularity in the service of summons (Basant Singh & Anr. Vs.
Roman Catholic Mission, 2002 SCC OnLine SC 944).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967
14.2 Further, it may be mentioned that in case titled Commissioner of
Income Tax, Punjab Vs. Daulat Ram Khanna, AIR 1967 SC 1552 in
somewhat similar circumstances where though the notice by way of
affixation was not pasted on the outer wall of the office of the Income Tax
Office, the Income Tax Officer held it to be proper service. In appeal, the
High Court held it to be invalid service. Same was challenged before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court. While setting aside the High Court‟s order, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court held: