measurement book. The application is stated to have been
sent by UPC to the address of the arbitrator with a copy sent to the respondent ... Another
communication was sent by the appellant dated 22.07.2002 once again under
UPC which was received by the arbitrator making a reference to the earlier
notice dated 6.5.1977; they are all purported to be sent under UPC; and the UPC for each of the 4 letters ... rightly believed the four letters written by the plaintiff and the UPC receipts thereof. The plaintiff and PW 3 were not cross-examined about these
said letter
was stated to have been sent under postal certificate (UPC).
It is averred in the plaint that since the letter was not
returned
valid for year 1998-99 and that notice was dispatched through UPC on 31.3.1999 itself. The Appellate Authority also did not agree with the submissions ... case it is not disputed that notice was dispatched on 31.3.1999 by UPC since the said fact has been verified from the record produced
Shri Satish Sahni, respondent No. 2 intimating the date of hearing under UPC clearly pointing out that no further notice would be given
petitioner also sought to produce certain letters sent to the respondent under UPC. These documents were filed only at the stage of evidence
valid
for year 1998-99 and that notice was dispatched through
UPC on 31.3.1999 itself. The appellate authority also
did not agree with the submissions ... case it is not disputed that
notice was dispatched on 31.3.1999 by UPC since the
said fact has been verified from the record produced
this letter
with the petition but the letter was sent under UPC and acknowledgment of
the letter is not disputed. In this behalf, my attention
back the registration amount. This letter is dispatched on 4.4.1994 and the UPC receipted is annexed to the petition. The amount was, however, not refunded
