Legal notice by email validity

Keep the evidence of notice sent to last known address by registered post. Scanned copy of the same may be sent by email. Take action  depending on what is the endorsement on the post if it is returned back.

THANX FOR PROMPT REPLY

1) EMAIL SERVED PROPERLY

2) SPEED POST RETURNED BACK SAYS :NO COMPNAY EXIST BY THIS NAME ON ABOVE ADDRESS ( DESPITE BIG BOARD AT PRESENT ON THIS ADRESS)

KINDLY SUGEST ACTION TO BE TAKEN

Send a RTI to postal department asking them to explain how they find out that No company existed .But u should findout first that if company is still there or it has changed its address.

The notice under sec. 138 of NI Act is required to be served on the accused within one month of intimation of dishonour of cheque but no specific format is prescribed.  Hence it can be issued by email.  As per section 4 of IT ACT it will be recognised as valid proof of being sent in writing.  However the requirement of signature can be complied with by getting it signed digitally, Though there is no specific requirement under sec. 138 that the notice should be signed.  SC has recently held that even if the notice does not bear signature of the sender, the demand of cheque amount is held validly made by sending the notice at proper address and recieved by the issuer of bounced cheque.

For proving service of notice by email a delivery/read reciept may be requested while sending the email and it be ensured that the email ID is correct.  Please refer sec. 65B of Evidence Act for this purpose which has been incorporated to prove electronic records.

SIR THANKS

1) I TALKED TO THE POST MASTER HE SAID POSTMAN WENT THERE AND GLOW SIGN BOARD THERE BUT WE DONT HAVE RECOR THAT BY THIS NAME CO EXIST.

2) OUR PERSON ASKED AT THE ADDRESS AND TOLD NO CO EXIST BY THIS NAME

3) CO, EXIST AT PRESENT I HAVE SEEN

4) WEBSITE SHOWS CO ADREES

Yogesh anand has given teh most pertinent reply with teh backing of relevant laws

Thanks S.Shravan.

Procedural law has not been developed to the extent that notice by email is legal.

More over if you claim such notive you have to prove  A) IT IS THE CORRECT  ID B) WHETHER THE MAIL BOX WAS OPENED BY THE ACCUSED IF SO WHEN.

SINCE THERE ARE TWO CONDITIONS IN THE  NI 138 LAW SUB SECTION B ) SAYS GIVING NOTIVE AND SUBSECTION C) SAYS AFTER RECIEPT OF NOTICE.

THIS ASPECT OF GIVING NOTICE AND RECIEPT OF NOTICE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN VARIOUS CASE LAWS OF APEX COURT.

SEE FROM ONE THE CITATION OF SUPREME COURT  REGARDING NOTICE=

[AIR 2001 SC 676], wherein this Court categorically held:

“6. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act deals
with the presumption of service of a letter sent by
post. The dispatcher of a notice has, therefore, a
right to insist upon and claim the benefit of such a
presumption. But as the presumption is rebuttable
one, he has two options before him. One is to
concede to the stand of the sendee that as a matter
of fact he did not receive the notice, and the other
is to contest the sendee's stand and take the risk for
proving that he in fact received the notice. It is
open to the despatcher to adopt either of the
options. If he opts the former, he can afford to take
appropriate steps for the effective service of notice
upon the addressee.
 

Email service of legal notice is also valid in law as per IT Act.

"Solve problems" has explained the matter very well. Though emails notices are technically legal but there is no guarantee or confirmation of email delivery. Thus this aspect is the problem. Sending email is like sending a post card or ordinary letter. No guarantee of delivery or aknowleldgment of delivery. The opposite party can claim they never recieved the email. Even email service providers do not provide guaranteed delivery of email or any aknowledgment of delivery.

Courts have maintained that a legal notice sent to the last known address is sufficient. Looking at the many issues raised under S.138 on this aspect, the court has given one more bloomer: That is, the case can be dismissed by the trial court if the accused makes payment on the first day after receiving the summon.

So ideally a person who denies not receiving notice, must also deny receiving summons !! Otherwise there is a possibility of this defense failing.

Also the act does not define the mode of notice, so any legally acceptable mode may be argued to be sufficient.