Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 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
Reference was
made to proceedings reported in Kalu Ram
Vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (note) 44 wherein it
had been observed that service of notice
being admitted without reservation and that
having not been replied, in that eventuality
adverse inference should be drawn.
The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Division Of High Courts Act, 2015
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.
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]
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hiralal & Ors on 15 January, 1996
(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: 2005 SCC (Cri) 393].) It is, therefore,
manifest that in view of the presumption available
under Section 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to
aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act
that service of notice was evaded by the accused or
that the accused had a role to play in the return of
the notice unserved.