<?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>2008 (7) TMI 1082 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299294</link>
    <description>Statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act sent by registered post and under certificate of posting to the correct address gives rise to a presumption of service. The validity of service cannot be rejected merely on the basis of a postal endorsement, especially where the postal peon was not examined. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party disputing service, and the notice requirement must be construed to advance the object of the provision. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the complaint and summons; the impugned order was set aside and the prosecution under Section 138 was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 11:01:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 1082 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299294</link>
      <description>Statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act sent by registered post and under certificate of posting to the correct address gives rise to a presumption of service. The validity of service cannot be rejected merely on the basis of a postal endorsement, especially where the postal peon was not examined. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party disputing service, and the notice requirement must be construed to advance the object of the provision. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the complaint and summons; the impugned order was set aside and the prosecution under Section 138 was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>