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

2023 Supreme(SC) 1780

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, S. V. N. BHATTI
Priyanka Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Shailendra Kumar – Respondent


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

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 :

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:

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.

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
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top