Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 489 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - legally enforceable debt or not - service of notice upon the respondents/accused persons - rebuttal of presumptions - Section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether a notice issued upon the director/authorized signatory of the company can be deemed to be a valid notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act fell for consideration in BILAKCHAND GYANCHAND CO. VERSUS A. CHINNASWAMI [1999 (3) TMI 620 - SUPREME COURT] and RAJNEESH AGGARWAL VERSUS AMIT J. BHALLA [2001 (1) TMI 855 - SUPREME COURT]. In the instant appeal, however, it is not the question to be decided as to whether service of notice upon the director and authorized signatory of the company is sufficient to bind the company for liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Unlike Himanshu (supra) the appellant/complainant issued notices to both the respondent/company and accused No.2 being the authorized signatory on behalf of the respondent/company. The respondent during trial of the case failed to prove service of notice upon accused No.2. So far as accused No.1 is concerned, it is found from the copy of the notice that the name and address of accused No.1/company was correctly recorded in the demand notice. The postal track report shows that it was served upon the accused No.1/company. During trial of the case the defacto complainant has proved the copy of notice, postal receipt and the postal track report. The postal track shows that the demand notice was served upon the accused No.1/company on 12th April, 2013. The accused however did not examine any witness to rebut the presumption of due service of notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. In the instant case it is found from the copy of the notice that it was addressed respondent No.1/company in its correct address. The postal track report shows that it was duly served upon the respondent No.1/company. Therefore, the court is free to presume that the notice was duly served upon the accused No.1/company under the provision of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act - The question as to whether it was sent to the accused/company or that it was served or not in correct address is a question of fact to be determined from the copy of the notice and the postal track report. The copy of the notice, it is recorded hereinabove contains correct address of the accused No.1/company. The postal track report shows that it was duly served upon the accused/company. There are no alternative but to hold that the demand notice was duly served on 12th April, 2013 to the accused No.1/company - appeal allowed.
|