9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat packet has been returned with the endorsement "unclaimed". That service was effected through Sheriff's office. A second Affidavit of Service has been filed showing this. 3. The Registry insists, it seems, that substituted service be effected at Navi Mumbai also. This is unnecessary and for more than one reason. The Defendant may be served at any one of several addresses. It has been deemed to have properly served at Gurgaon address. 4. In any case, there is a well-established presumption that the return of packet with the endorsement "unclaimed" is good service. Obviously, this means that an intimation of the packet was left with the Defendant at Navi Mumbai address and the Defendant was required to claim that packet. This is sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en or principle. Any other view would permit a dishonest company to avoid service of a notice in a variety of ways by refusing to claim the same from the postal authorities despite intimation of the delivery thereof. Take a simple example. Companies are known to have their registered office in premises where they do not carry on any significant manufacturing, trading or administrative activities. The premises are used as a registered office only for the purpose of convenience and for complying with statutory provisions. In such a case, the company could well avoid service of notices and then refuse to claim the same despite notification from the postal authority to do so. (Emphasis added) 5. This is also the view of RD Dhanuka J in Jenjon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the petitioner. In my view, the limitation for filing of the arbitration petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act would commence from the date on which the intimation was posted by the postman and the same was not collected by the petitioner from the post office. Admittedly, the intimation was posted in this case by the postman on 21st July 2014 and 22nd July 2014 whereas the petitioner has lodged the arbitration petition only on 22nd June 2015. The petition thus having been filed after expiry of three months from the date of deemed delivery of such award, the petition in my view is barred by law of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. (Emphasis added) 6. Even more curious is the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, AIR 1989 SC 630; Shri David KN v. Shri SR Chaubey (Chaturvedi), 2003 (4) Bom CR 612; Deelip Apte v. Nilesh P Salgaonkar & Anr, 2006 (6) Bom CR 653; Indira Rani Ugrasen v. Vijaya B Desai & Ors, Civil Revision Application No. 139 of 2007, decided on 7th August 2015, per MS. Sonak J, which contains a very instructive review of the case law. [2] Supra. A contrary view expressed by a learned single Judge in 2012 in M/s. Shree Varun Trading Co. v. M/s. Mahesh Associates & Ors, (2012) 5 All MR 51 does not appear to have considered the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, including the decision of Vazifdar J in Ispat Industries, which was of 2005. A more recent decision by another learned sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
