Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hira Lal and Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 525, it has been held by the Supreme Court that when the addressee managed to have the notice returned with the postal remarks "not available in the house", "house locked", "shop locked", it must be deemed that the notices have been served on the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon certain rulings though not referred during course of arguments but submitted along with written arguments for the proposition that when a registered envelope is returned with the endorsement of refusal and the addressee has denied the refusal in the witness box the presumption of service stands rebutted, A reference has been made to the following cases :
Madan & Co vs Wazir Jaivir Chand on 28 November, 1988
14. Be that as it may in the case in hand the registered letter was returned with the endorsement "not met" by the postman. The Supreme Court has considered the legal effect of such endorsement with reference to the service of the letter in the case of M/s. Madan and Company (supra). This case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It is not the case of the appellant that the address mentioned on the registered envelope was incorrect or incomplete. The striking feature of the case is that whenever the notices or summons were sought to be served on the appellant by the Court below they have always been returned with the vague endorsements such as "not found", "addressee has left" and "not met".
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Ram Rati vs Fakira on 9 November, 1987
(4) Ram Rati v. Fakira, 1988 AWC 268.
1