<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1975 (9) TMI 182 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184107</link>
    <description>A second appeal was treated as within limitation because the memorandum was incomplete without the required copy of the first-instance judgment, and the appellant could exclude the time spent obtaining that copy. On service of notice by registered post, a presumption of service may arise under the Evidence Act and the General Clauses Act, but it is rebuttable. A sworn denial by the addressee that no tender or refusal occurred was accepted as sufficient to rebut the presumption, shifting the burden back to the sender to prove actual service. The presumption of service failed, the tenant succeeded, and the eviction petition remained dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:16:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (9) TMI 182 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184107</link>
      <description>A second appeal was treated as within limitation because the memorandum was incomplete without the required copy of the first-instance judgment, and the appellant could exclude the time spent obtaining that copy. On service of notice by registered post, a presumption of service may arise under the Evidence Act and the General Clauses Act, but it is rebuttable. A sworn denial by the addressee that no tender or refusal occurred was accepted as sufficient to rebut the presumption, shifting the burden back to the sender to prove actual service. The presumption of service failed, the tenant succeeded, and the eviction petition remained dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>