Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.63 seconds)Section 27 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Anga Chinni Babu And Ors. on 25 November, 1991
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Anga Chinni Babu
reported in 1992 ACJ 281, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that if
the claimants have not produced any material to show that there is policy
at that point of time, the burden can never shift and that their duty is only
to show that a particular vehicle involved in the accident is insured with a
particular company with a particular policy number and if that material has
been supplied by the claimants, it is the duty of the insurance company to
9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1407 of 2011
produce the evidence to the effect whether that policy was there on them
or whether a wrong policy has been given or whether the policy mentioned
in the O.P. belongs to some other vehicle.
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
21. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act deals with the
presumption of service of notice sent by post and provides that service of
such notice shall be deemed to have been effected unless the contrary is
proved. The Honble Supreme Court in C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty
Muhammed and another reported in (2007) 6 ACC 555 has held that
when a notice is sent to the correct address by registered post, service of
notice can be presumed and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
In the case of K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and
another reported in 1999 (7) SCC 510, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that where the sender has despatched the notice by post with the correct
address written on it, then it can be deemed to have been served on the
sendee.
Harcharan Singh vs Smt. Shivrani And Ors. on 20 February, 1981
“It is well settled that a notice refused to be accepted
by the addressee can be presumed to have been served on
him, [vide Harcharan Singh vs. Smt. Shivrani and Ors.,
[1981] 2 SCC 535, and Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh,
[1992] 1 SCC 647.] Here the notice is returned as unclaimed
and not as refused. Will there be any significant different
between the two so far as the presumption of service is
concerned? In this connection a reference to Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act will be useful. The Section reads thus :
United India Insurance Company Limited vs R. Venkatesan And Dakshinamoorthy on 19 December, 2002
12. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in United India
Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Vs. R.Venkatesan and another
reported in 2003 (1) LW 31, considering the various judgments of other
High Courts as well as the mandatory provisions stipulated in the Motor
Vehicles Act and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Rules has
formulated the points for strict compliance of the parties concerned and
the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-