2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 14329
H. SHASHIDHARA SHETTY, Registrar
PRIYANKA KUMARI – Appellant
Versus
SHAILENDRA KUMAR – Respondent
Transfer Petition(Civil) No(s). 2090/2019
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kapil Chandna, Manish Kumar, Mukesh Kumar, Shashank Gusain, Akash
For the Respondents:
Service of notice deemed valid if returned as 'unclaimed' unless disproven.
Headnote:In Transfer Petition(Civil) No. 2090/2019, the Court addressed the service of notice in accordance with established jurisprudence. Relying on K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) and Ajeet Seeds Limited Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah (2014), the Court found that returned notices, designated as 'unclaimed,' are considered served. The Court emphasized that unless disputed, the service is deemed valid when directed to the correct address. Consequently, the notice to the respondent was deemed proper service. The decision mandates further action by the Registry for listing.
ORDER
As per the office report the notice issued to the sole respondent has returned with the remarks “unclaimed”. As it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510 that when notice is returned as ‘unclaimed’, it shall be deemed to be duly served upon the contd…. Digitally signed by PRIYANKA MALIK Date: 2023.10.16 16:06:20 IST Reason:
Signature Not Verified addressee and it is a proper service of notice. In the case of Ajeet Seeds Limited Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah (2014)12 SCC 685 (2014), 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.” 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. 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 contd…. 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. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon’ble Court, as per rules. H. SHASHIDHARA SHETTY 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. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon’ble Court, as per rules. H. SHASHIDHARA SHETTY Registrar
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
