Notice 138 of nia
Neeraj Kaushal
(Querist) 24 February 2014
This query is : Resolved
I have sent notice , but notice returned back with remarks , person is not residing there, what can i do now, if i will file complaint , then accused can take defence of service of notice. kindly suggest .
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 24 February 2014
Consult the local Advocate and follow his advise.
Akhilesh Maurya
(Expert) 24 February 2014
he cannot take defence of non service of notice
ajay sethi
(Expert) 24 February 2014
if person is not residing at said address how would it be proper service . ?better file a summary suit
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 25 February 2014
this summon persume to be serve if the address is correct and the accused was live there earliar.
contact a lawyer peraonally, it will be better
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 25 February 2014
Even if you file the case the correct address of the drawer has to be given. Whether the notice was sent at an address which was given by him in his Bank Account. If so it may amount to proper service.
Better contact your lawyer.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 27 February 2014
Notice can betaken to the last known address and if it is returned, address not known after that, it can be deemed to be served with the notice and the complaint can be filed accordingly.The latest settled law by Supreme court states that under such circumstances it can be taken that the notice has been duly served.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 25 April 2014
Advocate Niraj Kaushal,
Notice sent to last known address is sufficient, u can go ahead
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 25 April 2014
Notice is most imp link for the case and though there is presumption but it can be rebutted ...
See what APEX COURT has said--
It is then for the drawer to rebut the presumption about the service of notice and show that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address or that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the letter was never tendered or that the report of the postman was incorrect. In our opinion, this interpretation of the provision would effectuate the object and purpose for which proviso to Section 138 was enacted, namely, to avoid unnecessary hardship to an honest drawer of a cheque and to provide him an opportunity to make amends.
SO MARE PLEADING IS NOT SUFFICIENT THE COMPLAINANT HAS TO SHOW BY RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT WHAT IS THE CORRECT ADDRESS . IF PROPERLY CONTESTED MOST OF THE CHEQUE CASES FOR IMPROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE FAIL ON THIS POINT ALONE.
We are contesting a case before GUJRAT HIGH COURT that the notice was addressed to MAHESH but complaint is against MAHESHBHAI so there is no proper sending and service in view of above citation.
