Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.97 seconds)

Vaman Vithal Kulkarni vs Khanderao Ramrao Sholapurkar on 20 October, 1934

2. The second point urged on behalf of the appellants was that the notice was sent by the landlord not on a post card, but in a closed cover, and either of the two tenants could not have notice of the contents of We same; and reliance for this purpose was placed on Vaman Vithal Kulkarni v. Khanderao Ram Rao, AIR 1935 Bom 247. In that case a registered cover was tendered to the addressee, but was refused by him and was brought back unopened and delivered to the sender. It was field that the letter was not served so as to bring the contents to the notice of the person to whom the letter was addressed, even though the addressee may have defined to accept it. It was further pointed out that it could not be assumed that because the addressee declined to accept the particular sealed envelope, he could correctly guess its contents. With all respects, I find it difficult to accept this view.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1