138 ni act
NEERAJ SHARMA
(Querist) 16 February 2013
This query is : Resolved
how to prove service of legal notice which was send by speed post(but delivery report not available on net since six months passed) and registered post( acknowlegment card was not recived back) 138 has been filed and notice to post office has been issued but no reply from post office also
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 16 February 2013
Send a letter to the Post Master asking for status of delivery.
His reply would be sufficient to prove delivery of notice.
Guest
(Expert) 16 February 2013
So far as notice to the Post Office is concerned, the Postmaster is not authoritsed to reply to any legal notice. You should have addressed the notice u/s 80 CPC to the Secretary, Department of Post along with a copy to the Chief Postmaster General of your Circle. The Postmaster can give you reply only on enquiry letter providing you the status of the article that too after payment of the precribed inquiry fee, if the article did not contain prepaid Acknowledgment Due Card.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 16 February 2013
har kaam mein notice jaroori hanin hota. polite bhasha bhee kaam karatee hai.
Anirudh
(Expert) 16 February 2013
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
In the instant case Section 80 CPC notice has nothing to do especially when the party is not claiming anything from the Department, nor the party is intending to the sue the department.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 16 February 2013
Generally it is a kind of enquiry about service and is addressed to the office superintendent post offices who in turn inquires from subordinates and then replies.
Advocate Ramesh
(Expert) 16 February 2013
You are asking regarding cheque bounce case. Since you filed 138 proceedings. Whether court take into file or not. If yes why are you worry about sending notice. If the court asks for not producing acknowledgement then you can attach the receipt that you are sending and the copy of the letter that you send to post master, that is enough to file a case
Guest
(Expert) 16 February 2013
Dear Anirudh,
If you read the query of the querist, he has stated, "notice to post office has been issued."
Can you please point our what wrong I have written, if I have pointed out that "so far as notice to the Post Office is concerned, the Postmaster is not authoritsed to reply to any legal notice and also that the Postmaster can give you reply only on enquiry letter providing you the status of the article?"
Clearly, the intention was to guide him that he should send a letter for enquiry about the delivery of article, instead of notice.
Further, has I mentioned anywhere that Section 80 CPC notice was necessary in his case? Naturally, if he has issued notice, instead of addressing the Postmaster, he should have addressed the same to the Secretary, etc. I don't think, I have written anything wrong on the issue of his notice to Post Office. I have neither presumed about notice nor I stated anywhere that he must issue notice under sec.80.
You may better have advised him the right procedure to the querist, if I expressed any wrong opinion on his own mention of issue of notice to the Postmaster. But the same is missing in your reply, evidently with clear intention to criticise me. It seems as if you are allergic to my opinions, as has revealed from your responses to some other questions also.
Anirudh
(Expert) 16 February 2013
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
A few things first.
I am not at all allergic to anything, let alone your opinions. I really enjoy the contents of most of your opinions, which is far superior to those of the legal experts here. Therefore the question of any allergy to your opinions simply does not arise.
You say that you infer that I am allergic to your opinions because of some of my responses to other questions also. Probably, you are referring to the issue of Cr.PC 340 in the CAT scenario. Come on. It was a professional healthy discussion. Nowhere I had criticised you in that thread. I did not even ever say that you are wrong. Rather, I have been pointing out what I felt of the provisions. That's all. If you could remember, in fact, I concluded that thread by thanking you for the healthy debate! That was much prior to the current thread. Therefore, to think that I am allergic to your opinions is beyond my imagination.
Now coming to the present thread. I just pointed out to you the legal position as far as Sec. 80 CPC is concerned.
This was because, you had said: "You should have addressed the notice u/s 80 CPC to the Secretary, Department of Post along with a copy to the Chief Postmaster General of your Circle."
I was only pointing out to you (certainly not criticising) how notice u/s 80 CPC was not applicable in the fact situation.
In case you felt offended, please ignore my post.
Guest
(Expert) 16 February 2013
Dear Anirudh,
First of all, thanks for your clarification and appreciation about my opinions treating them superior to those of the legal experts.
Thanks again for treating the discussion about CrPC 340, as healthy discussion on the other thread.
In the context of notice by the querist, I have already clarified why I had to point out about whom the notice was to be addressed, were he to send notice to the Postal authorities.
Anyway, thanks again. Not offended at all.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 16 February 2013
I directly address to the querist.
If the acknowledgement of the registered post has not received within one month then such notice shall be treated as received to the recipient and there are various judgments on this subject so you have nothing to worry.
NEERAJ SHARMA
(Querist) 18 February 2013
thanks to all i think i should search some case law upon it
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 18 February 2013
That is called DEEMED SERVICE.
one judgement for ready reference is:
Karnataka High Court
Neelesh Kumar Alias Neelesh Jain vs Janardhana on 21 July, 2004
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/692172/
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 18 February 2013
But in my personal opinion :
1) A notice is deemed served if it is proved to have been properly addressed, placed in an envelope, prepaid and posted.
2)But If a statute requires the date of service to be identified and it can be proved that a notice was delivered late or was not delivered at all, this will rebut the initial presumption of deemed service.
The first stage of the test places the burden of proof on the sender of the notice and not on the recipient. The sender must prove that they have properly addressed, prepaid and posted the notice. Which he can do by producing receipt issued by post office.But often these receipt are not issued with full name and addressed of the addressee(recipient)so unless envelop posted is also photo copied after affixing postage,difficulties may come across addresser to prove in court it was properly addressed.Invariably in case of Speed post particularly receipts issued are normally computerized,where for want of space they often go for short cut ,that is only name and city is found printed and common man does not care about this lacuna. I think in terms of evidencing it the receipt of such a nature can not prove fact that "it was properly addressed" ,some thing more would be required to be adduced to fulfill the"space" created here.
The second stage requires the addressee of the letter to prove on the balance of
probabilities that the notice was not served on him or was served after the cut off date. In terms of evidencing this, it is not enough to simply assert that a notice was not received; the court will consider all of the evidence and make its findings according to the facts
established in the usual way .
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 13 April 2013
Once Posted, it is deemed recd.
You have Receipt of Regd Post AD is enough.
