Supreme Court of India

C.C. Alavi Haji v Palapetty Muhammed

(2007) 6 SCC 55520071 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A complaint under S.138 NI Act was challenged on the ground that the complaint did not allege that the demand notice was served, and the drawer claimed he had not received it.
Issue
Whether a demand notice sent by post to the correct address is presumed served, and what a drawer who denies receipt must do.
Held
A notice sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address is presumed served under S.27 of the General Clauses Act unless the drawer proves otherwise. A drawer who claims non-receipt can pay the amount within 15 days of receiving the court summons; if he does not, he cannot rely on non-service.
Principle
A properly addressed and posted S.138 notice is presumed served; the drawer may avoid prosecution by paying within 15 days of the summons.
Cite this

Facts

  • A complaint under S.138 NI Act was challenged on the ground that the complaint did not allege that the demand notice was served, and the drawer claimed he had not received it.

Issue

  1. Whether a demand notice sent by post to the correct address is presumed served, and what a drawer who denies receipt must do.

Held

  • A notice sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address is presumed served under S.27 of the General Clauses Act unless the drawer proves otherwise. A drawer who claims non-receipt can pay the amount within 15 days of receiving the court summons; if he does not, he cannot rely on non-service.

Cite this

Citation

C.C. Alavi Haji v Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/272690/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.