SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1780

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
Priyanka Kumari – Petitioner
Versus
Shailendra Kumar – Respondent
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2090 of 2019
Decided On : 13-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Kapil Chandna, Manish Kumar, Mukesh Kumar, Shashank Gusain, Akash, Vishwa Pal Singh

Service of notice returned as 'unclaimed' is deemed effective unless the addressee proves otherwise, affirming prior case law interpretations.

Headnote:(A) General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 27 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Service of notice - Notice returned as ‘unclaimed’ is deemed to be duly served upon the addressee, as per K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510 and Ajeet Seeds Limited vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685 - The court clarified that both 'refusal' and 'unclaimed' denote adequate service when sent to the correct address, unless the addressee proves otherwise. (Paras 2-4)

Facts of the case:
The notice issued to the sole respondent returned with the remarks ‘unclaimed’. The court considered this return as proper service of notice under the referenced judgments.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that ‘unclaimed’ notices are deemed served and are adequate for proceeding in the matter.

Issues: The main issue addressed was the proper interpretation of service of notice when returned as ‘unclaimed’ and its equivalence to ‘refusal’.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that service of notice is considered complete upon proper dispatch regardless of being returned as unclaimed, unless the addressee demonstrates otherwise, supported by previous rulings.

Result: The service of notice is deemed proper and the matter shall proceed.

Judgement Key Points

Please provide the legal document content (inside ... tags) so I can extract and summarize the key points with references as instructed.


Table of Content
1. notice returned unclaimed is deemed served. (Para 1)
2. court clarifies deemed service of notices. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. matter to be processed for listing. (Para 5)

ORDER :

1. As per the office report the notice issued to the sole respondent has returned with the remarks “unclaimed.”

2. As it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another , (1999) 7 SCC 510 that when notice is returned as ‘unclaimed’ it shall be deemed to be duly served upon the addressee and it is a proper service of notice. In the case of Ajeet Seeds Limited vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah , (2014) 12 SCC 685, the Hon’ble Court while interpreting Section 27 of GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897 and also Section 114 of EVIDENCE ACT 1872 held as under:

“Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication sent by post would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Further, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to 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.”

3. It has been observed that Registry mentions in the office report that where the notice is returned as ‘refusal’ is complete/proper service, whereas when it is returned as ‘unclaimed’ is not proper service/incomplete service.

4. In the opinion of this Court, it is not proper and correct. The word ‘refusal’ can be interpreted in synonymous to the word “unclaimed.” As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decisions, when a notice is served to the proper address of the addressee, it shall be deemed to be served unless contrary is proved. Thus, when the notice is returned as unclaimed, it shall be deemed to be served and it is proper service. Therefore, service of notice to the sole respondent which has returned as unclaimed is considered as deemed to be served but none has entered appearance.

5. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon’ble Court, as per rules.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top