138 n.i. act
pritpal rajput
(Querist) 22 February 2012
This query is : Resolved
I have sent a legal notice on dated 30.10.2009 through advocate to addressee with A.D. Then i have filed a case in court December 2009 with Original cheque, original bank memo and original postal receipt but i could not get A.D. My question is this without A.D. the service is sufficient on addressee is or not ? and he is on bail. Any ruling is there that without A.D.the service is sufficient to addressee ?
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 22 February 2012
If the AD or packet does not come back, then it is presumed that the notice is duly served.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 23 February 2012
There are various citation on this point and you need not worry. You allow your lawyer to move ahead even without AD.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 23 February 2012
Proof of posting is enough.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
AAK
(Expert) 23 February 2012
Agree with the experts veiw. However you can get the details from post office. you can move an application to postal office and ask for delivery detail.
NOTTAM VENKATASAMY
(Expert) 24 February 2012
PROOF OF DELIVERY IS ENOUGH YOU MOVE POST OFFICE FOR PROOF OF SERVICE
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 24 February 2012
PROOF OF POSTING AT LAST KNOWN TRUE AND CORRECT ADDRESS IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE DELIVERY OF NOTICE [UNDER gen clause act sec 27]
Advised to complain in writing to postal dept, get report of delivery.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 26 February 2012
SC has held in many citations that provisions of NI 138 are legal fiction and hence the same has to be COMPLIED strictly.
The section provided for two requirements 138 ( b) says giving of notice. Here are also the complainant has to prove that notice sent was at the correct address of the accused , mere statement is not sufficient.
Another important provisions is in section 138 ( c) that the accused has t0 act after RECEIPT of the notice.
When law provided for two different requirements both has to be complied before the accused is made liable.
There are such such simple simple technical requirements through which it is easy for any accused to win any cheque bounce case.
ANY CASE OF CHEQUE BOUNCE IS NOT WON BY THE COMPLAINANT BUT IT IS LOST BY THE ACCUSED DUE to LOUSY DEFENSE SINCE THEY DO NOT EXPLOIT ALL THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEFENSE WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN ABUNDANCE.
