Avinash Jain Earlier Proprietor Of M/S Jain Rice Industries v. The Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation Ltd And Another
!
"#!$ % !
%&'( )(*+,+- '.&/*.0
! #!$%& '( ) * ''
+ ! 1#2 !" 3
4
3" # , -(! .'/
01 (! .'/
4
3" 0"/&5 " !'
0 3 % '
)/ / . .4 4
'&& ' '1
%$ 1 % %
6
6 7 1
& ''8 / 8
9
'
/ 6 !
1 /
' 4 4 % /
'&6
'6//!
1
'6 ''
" %$
'!'
33
'1 ' 1 % ' . 3
'
'):#3; '
1
6 &
' '! & '
/8 % /
'& / 8
%
' " 6
6 ' ' 36 %
8
% ' 6'
'
/'
1
6 <1 5 *
!%1
6 6 /
'&- &!
/8
6 '6 / %8 "
6 9/1 / 3 .& '/8 6 '
6'
' &
6 '%/7%8 % *
/
'
!%1
66 /
'&=
!%1 ! !/ / %8 % .
' >!
'$! 1 - &!
6 '6 !& &
' &
'! '%8
7&'$! 1 +
/ '!0
( ) ! / . ; .4()/ 4
/ 0! )!
!
= '
' ! / '
66 /
'&.
/ " '
6 6
% /
'& 1
'
1 ' /
7&'$! 1 % /
'& .6
' 7 %8
6
% /
'&'6 /&
'&
6
7 %8
' 6
.
1 '
1
8 '
!& '
%$ 33 ; ' 7 %8
/
'&!'
35 6 & '76
'& <9
6 '
5 < /!
/
'&=
/8
6 ' 5%!
/86 ! ' 1 1 .
6
'
! !/
'
' ;3 . /86 ! ';3 /!
// ' &
8// !'
6 ' 7 %8
6
/ '/ 8 - '!
/8 6 '6
!& &
' '
6 %/76 ' ?
'' 1
/ @ 1 ! / '. /
/!
&
6
/
6 '
9 '! '%8
7&'$! 1
'& . 6!
8
()/ 0 '!/
6, !
" # $% &
!
"
()/ '
6 / %8
48 < 4! ' 6'
1%
!1 / '/!1 .
'%8 &
.
98&.
8''
&'/ & '/!1 3
1! '0 3 ?'
'@'
353 ! 6 '?
'@A ?'
'@'
?
'@6!
/
'
1! '0 ()/
6'
86 '
5
>!
!1
/ '/!1 %!
%
! ! 8'
8&
'/!1 +
& '1'
'
/
0! )!
'
%'(
#"
'
)!*'+ '
, -)
*.* '
/ 0! )!
/
'!%8
!
/
! '6 '
4 %
/ 4
!1 ' /
'!/
6, 19. The summons issued by registered post was received back with postal endorsement of refusal, as would be clear from the order dated 19.02.1997. Sub-Rule (5) of Order V Rule 9 of the Code states inter alia that if the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons, the court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant. The order dated 19.02.1997 was thus completely in conformity with the legal requirements. In a slightly different context, while considering the effect of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a Bench of three Judges of this Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and another, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1705 made following observations:- 14.
Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further 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.
closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed."
[Emphasis supplied] - 6!
' % !
1 117& % '
6 6 &''
.
1 1'
%!
!1 7 '!'
() /
8 & / ' /
/& 8.6/11!/
1 % '/!. /
8'
/
1 % &&6'
8&
'&= 1 '
! 8
& 6 ''
8
'
6
- 6!
1
& '76
'& & 6 ' 5"/!
6
'& 6
&
%
8
7 6
%
.8
6
7
%8
;
% /'
' 1
& '76
'& & <9
6 ' 5'
6
;3 8 /8 6 '///
8 / '
8 &%$ !
"
!9 %!
' !1 '!
/ 6 '
&
/ 1'
!
1!& ' '
'1 0/ 1 %
'1 '. '& / .
8. '
' !/ !! 4
3" " %
'.&/*.0 :
7&B , B :
%
, B