9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the notice of hearing for the appeal fixed on 13-2-1991 was actually delivered to the appellant/applicant Firm. 2. Whether the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the delivery of notice can be rebutted by the appellant/applicant Firm. 3. Whether the dismissal order of the appeal should be set aside and the case restored on file. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the notice of hearing for the appeal fixed on 13-2-1991 was actually delivered to the appellant/applicant Firm: The Tribunal sent a notice of hearing on 7-1-1991 under registered post, fixing the appeal for 13-2-1991. The appellant Firm did not appear, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for default. The appellant Firm claimed it did not receive the notice or the subsequent dismissal order sent on 7-3-1991. The Tribunal's Outward Register indicated the notice was sent under registered post. The presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act suggests that a notice dispatched under registered post is deemed received by the appellant. 2. Whether the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the delivery of notice can be rebutted by the appellant/applicant Firm: The appellant Firm argued that the presumption of delivery under Section 114 is rebuttable and claimed non-receipt of the notice. They provided correspondence with the Postal Authority, indicating issues with letter delivery during 1991-92. However, the Tribunal noted that mere sworn statements are insufficient to rebut the presumption. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Kumar v. Nanak Chandra Verma, emphasizing that the reliability of the tenant's testimony is crucial in rebutting the presumption. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence insufficient to discharge the burden of proof, as their correspondence did not specify non-receipt dates clearly, and they admitted regular receipt of letters until August 1991. 3. Whether the dismissal order of the appeal should be set aside and the case restored on file: The Tribunal considered the appellant's plea based on the Supreme Court's decision in Mst. Katiji, which emphasizes that delays should not defeat justice. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of this case from Katiji, noting that the presumption of delivery under Section 114 stood unrebutted. The Tribunal also referenced the decision in Indra Bahadur v. Bar Council, Allahabad, highlighting that precedents should not be expanded beyond the needs of a given situation. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claims did not rebut the presumption of notice delivery, and the dismissal order was upheld. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the appellant/applicant Firm failed to rebut the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that they had received the hearing notice for the appeal fixed on 13-2-1991. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence insufficient and upheld the dismissal order, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence in rebutting statutory presumptions.
|
