Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)

Jenjon Retail And Services Pvt Ltd vs Lavasa Corportion Ltd on 22 June, 2016

The copy of the award was sent on the same address as 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 28-10-2019 09:39:32 ::: FAO No. 1816 of 2005 5 available with the Arbitrator on the record and there is nothing to show that the Arbitrator or the respondents herein had been intimated about the change of address. A party who is avoiding receipt of the award, cannot be permitted to hold the award in abeyance. Section 3 of the Act pertains to receipt of written communication and it is specified that any written communication is deemed to have been received if it is delivered to the addressee personally or at his place of business, habitual residence or mailing address; and a written communication is deemed to have been received, if it is habitual residence or mailing address by registered letter or by any other means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver it. Both the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar situation and interpreted Clause 31 (5) and Section 3 of the Act and it was held that once an envelope has been sent to a correct address and party refused to accept the same, it would amount to good service. Reference in this regard is made to the judgments rendered by the Bombay High Court in Jenjon Retail and Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Lavasa Corporation Ltd. 2016 SCC Online Bom 5321 and the Delhi High Court in Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Versus A.G. Aerovision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and others 2018 (4) AD (Delhi) 73.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1