Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)
Ramji Lal S/O Shri Buddharam vs Radhey Shyam Jhunjhunuwala (Hakim) S/O ... on 11 September, 2023
cites
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011
16. Counsel for the respondents/ defendants submitted that
there is sufficient cause for filing the application by the delay
because they were not having knowledge of the ex-parte
judgment and decree prior to 19.7.2017 when they received the
notice for filing the objections on an application for execution of
the ex-parte decree. Counsel for the respondents/ defendants
referred paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 12 of the judgment delivered in
the case of Parimal (supra) as well as paragraph 8 of the
judgment delivered in the case of GMG Engineering & Ors.
(supra), which are reproduced as under:-
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
In a
slightly different context, while considering the
effect of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act,
1897, a Bench of three Judges of this Court in C.C.
Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Anr2 made
following observations:-
Jagdish Singh vs Natthu Singh on 25 November, 1991
"14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption
that service of notice has been effected when
it is sent to the correct address by registered
post. In view of the said presumption, when
stating that a notice has been sent by
registered post to the address of the drawer,
it is unnecessary to further aver in the
complaint that in spite of the return of the
notice unserved, it is deemed to have been
served or that the addressee is deemed to
have knowledge of the notice. Unless and
until the contrary is proved by the
addressee, service of notice is deemed to
have been effected at the time at which the
letter would have been delivered in the
ordinary course of business. This Court has
already held that when a notice is sent by
registered post and is returned with a postal
endorsement "refused" or "not available in
the house" or "house locked" or "shop
closed" or "addressee not in station", due
service has to be presumed. [Vide Jagdish Singh v.
Natthu Singh3 : State of M.P. vs. Hiralal & Ors.4
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:55:34 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:20395] (12 of 20) [CW-15464/2018]
and V. Raja Kumari vs. P. Subbarama Naidu
& Anr.5]. ... ...."
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hiralal & Ors on 15 January, 1996
"14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption
that service of notice has been effected when
it is sent to the correct address by registered
post. In view of the said presumption, when
stating that a notice has been sent by
registered post to the address of the drawer,
it is unnecessary to further aver in the
complaint that in spite of the return of the
notice unserved, it is deemed to have been
served or that the addressee is deemed to
have knowledge of the notice. Unless and
until the contrary is proved by the
addressee, service of notice is deemed to
have been effected at the time at which the
letter would have been delivered in the
ordinary course of business. This Court has
already held that when a notice is sent by
registered post and is returned with a postal
endorsement "refused" or "not available in
the house" or "house locked" or "shop
closed" or "addressee not in station", due
service has to be presumed. [Vide Jagdish Singh v.
Natthu Singh3 : State of M.P. vs. Hiralal & Ors.4
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:55:34 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:20395] (12 of 20) [CW-15464/2018]
and V. Raja Kumari vs. P. Subbarama Naidu
& Anr.5]. ... ...."
Greater Mohali Area Dev. Authority & Ors vs Manju Jain & Ors on 19 August, 2010
9. Further reliance has been placed on 2010 (9) SCC
157, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and
others vs Manju Jain and others where it has been held
as under:
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 November, 2010
[2023:RJ-JP:20395] (16 of 20) [CW-15464/2018]
However, the presumption is rebuttable on a
consideration of evidence of impeccable character.
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court
in Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra."
Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani on 31 March, 1989
10. Again reliance has been placed on 1989 (2) SCC
602, Gujrat Electricity Board and another vs Atmaram
Sungomal Poshani, it has been held as under:
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
means that party had not acted in a negligent
manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part
in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or
the party cannot be alleged to have been "not acting
diligently" or "remaining inactive". However, the
facts and circumstances of each case must afford
sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to
exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the
court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:55:34 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:20395] (18 of 20) [CW-15464/2018]
judiciously. (Vide: Ramlal & Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields
Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; Sarpanch, Lonand
Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi & Anr., AIR 1968
SC 222; Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood,
AIR 1992 SC 1540; and Oriental Aroma Chemical
Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development
Corporation & Another, (2010) 5 SCC 459).