Whether notice issued by landlord to tenant by certificate of posting is valid?

 On the contrary, in the case of Sumitra Devi vs.

Sampuran Singh (2011) 3 SCC 556, which has been relied

upon by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, this Court

has held that “it will all depend on the facts of each case

whether the presumption of service of notice sent under postal

certificate should be drawn. It is true that as observed by the

Privy Council in its above referred judgment, the presumption

would apply with greater force to letters which are sent by

registered post, yet, when facts so justify, such presumption is

expected to be drawn even in the case of a letter sent under

postal certificate.” Considering the facts and circumstances of

that case, this Court held the notice sent under certificate of

posting to be sufficient service.

In the case of Ranju vs. Rekha Ghosh (2007) 14

SCC 81, this court was considering a case where one month’s

notice was to be given to the tenant for eviction. After

considering the provisions of the relevant Tenancy Act,

Transfer of Property Act and the Bengal General Clauses Act,

it was held that “clause (6) provides mere “one month’s

notice”; in such event, the said notice can be served in any

manner and it cannot be claimed that the same should be

served only by registered post with acknowledgement due.” In

the facts of that case, it was held that service of notice sent

under certificate of posting was sufficient. Similar is the case

at hand, where the Act provides for that ‘the landlord has

given a notice…’, without specifying the mode of such notice,

and in the facts of the present case, notice sent under postal

certificate has rightly been held to be proper service.

While considering a case of service of notice under the

Companies Act, this Court, in the case of V.S. Krishnan vs.

Westfort HiTech Hospitals (2008) 3 SCC 363, has held that

service of notice sent under certificate of posting would be

sufficient where “there are materials to show that notices

were sent, the burden is on the addressee to rebut the

statutory presumption.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2375 OF 2020

MOHD. ASIF NASEER Vs WEST WATCH COMPANY 

Dated:April 24, 2020.

Vineet Saran, J.

Print Page

Whether court should decide any controversy on basis of under certificate of posting?

 As regards sending of intimation under certificate of posting is concerned, it is to be noted that the date on which the said articles were dispatched under said certificate of posting is not very clear from the document at Exhibit-101/1. The Courts have been slow in recognising as a proper mode of service any article sent under certificate of posting. In Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao Vs. E.V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil and others - MANU/SC/0599/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 678 it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a certificate of posting is very easy to be obtained and the same is not reliable mode of delivery. Similarly, in Shiv Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others - MANU/SC/0731/1994 : (1994) 4 SCC 445 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it did not feel safe to decide the controversy in question on the basis of certificates of posting. It was further observed that it was not difficult to get such postal seals at any point of time. The Court refused to rely upon the certificate of posting therein as a mode of proper service. Reference can also be made to the decision in MANU/SC/0253/2006 : (2006) 1 SCC 407 -(State of Maharashtra Vs. Rashid B. Mulani), wherein it has been observed in clear terms that a Certificate of posting obtained by a sender is not comparable to a receipt for sending a communication by registered post. No record is maintained by the post office either about receipt of the letter or of the certificate issued and in absence of such record, a certificate of posting would be of very little assistance. It was also observed that the ease with which such certificates can be prepared by affixing an antedated seal is a matter of concern.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal Nos. 1945 and 1946 of 2009

Decided On: 13.12.2018

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.  Sarjerao Pataloji Kshirsagar and Ors.

Print Page

Whether insurance company will be liable to pay compensation even if cheque issued toward issuance of insurance policy is dishonoured?

 As per provisions of Section 147 (4) of the said Act, it is the duty of the insurer to notify the fact that the cover note issued by it is not followed by a policy of insurance. This has to be done within seven days from the expiry of the period of validity of the cover note. The aforesaid provisions have been considered in various decisions. In MANU/SC/4587/2007 : (2008) 2 SCC 595 - (Deddappa and others Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.), it has been held that if the contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have been intimated about the same, the Insurance Company would not be liable to satisfy the claimant. Thus in absence of any reliable evidence indicating compliance with the statutory requirements under Section 147(4) of the said Act, it would not be permissible to exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability. It is to be noted that the provisions of the said Act are beneficial in nature and in absence of any reliable evidence on record to exonerate the Insurance Company, the claimant cannot be deprived of receiving the amount of compensation from the insurer. Moreover, the deceased were third parties in so far as the offending vehicle is concerned. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law as laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. However, as the provisions of Section 147 of the said Act have not been shown to have been complied with by the insurer, ratio of said decision cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal Nos. 1945 and 1946 of 2009

Decided On: 13.12.2018

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.  Sarjerao Pataloji Kshirsagar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2019(1) MHLJ 943

Print Page

On which ground, change report filed before charity commissioner can be challenged?

 Here in the case, admittedly the notice of the proposed meeting, according to respondent No. 1 also was issued to appellant and respondent No. 2. The question is whether that notice was legal and valid in view of the mandate of the Memorandum of Association. As stated above, clause 16(C) of the Memorandum of Association lays down that 15 days written notice in advance be given to the members before the election of the members for executive committee. Clause 18 further lays down that the notice of 15 days in advance must be received by the member for any proposed meeting of General Body. Here in the case, admittedly the notice is alleged to be issued on 21/12/1990 and it is stated to be sent Under Certificate of Posting on 22/12/1990 as the meeting was proposed on 06/01/1991 and held on that day, it follows that there was no 15 days in advance notice before the date of meeting. It is apart that as per the case of appellant and respondent No. 2 they had not received the notice and the proof of Under Certificate of Posting cannot be a valid proof of service of notice as there is no acknowledgement receipt.

14. In view of this situation, it is apparent that in the first place 15 days notice in advance was not received by appellant and respondent No. 2 and on this very ground itself the DCC has rightly held that the meeting was not legal, proper and valid. Secondly, ousting of the appellant and respondent No. 2 in the said meeting and induction of some other members in the Executive Committee was also done without giving an opportunity of hearing to appellant and respondent No. 2. Even assuming that they had not paid the subscription fees, on this count also their removal from the membership in the said meeting and induction of some outsider members to the Executive Committee cannot be upheld.

15. Thus, looked at it from any angle, it cannot be said that the Change Report filed by the respondent No. 1 before the DCC on the basis of the resolution passed in the said meeting was legal, valid and correct. The DCC has rightly rejected the same. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

First Appeal No. 359/1998

Decided On: 18.07.2017

Santosh Vs. Purushottam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 888

Print Page