LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Preetpal singh Guliani (ADVOCATE)     17 June 2008

021 RULE 1& 2 CPC

hello ,

In a MACT case notice is not served on the decree holder regarding the deposit of money in the court. The High court in FAO directed to deposit the money to the insurance company. instead of serving notice to the high court lawyer the notice was served to the trial cout lawyer and that too not by Regd post or any other mode just telephonically.is it a valid notice.can the DH claim interest on the period of 4 years as the amount was in treasury without the interst.Are there any judgements that notice regarding deposit has to be served to the DH only .can a DH lawyer do any act or omission by virtue of power of attorney which can ultimately harm the interst of the DH later.



 3 Replies

ASHUTOSH (lawyer)     18 June 2008

no through telephonecally served the notice is not a valid notice and it is a settle law if a party went to appeal notice always  serve to the contesting party who has interest on case lower court lawyer lawyer has no conser so far in appeal unless and unttil he has again file a fresh vakalatnama in appeal DH. canot ask for interest for delayed period


ashutosh( adv)


Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     18 June 2008

There needs to be some proof for service. RPAD is the normal course of service other than process through court.

H. S. Thukral (Lawyer)     19 June 2008

As per  sub-rule (2)(O XXI  R 1) the judgment-debtor is not absolved of the obligation of informing the decree-holder by written notice even in respect of deposit in court either directly or by registered post. The purpose of addition of the expression "either through court directly or by registered post acknowledgment due" is that the judgment-debtor should not only give notice of payment but he must ensure that the decree-holder has been served with the notice. If the judgment debtor intends that the running of interest should cease then he must intimate in writing and ensure that it is served on the decree-holder. Sub-rules (4) and (5) added in 1976 to protect the judgment-debtor provide for cessation of interest from the date of deposit or payment. But the cessation of interest under sub-rule (4) takes place not by payment alone but from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2).

In the referred case , a telphonic notice that too, to the lawyer who held the brief in the trial court is no notice at all.

I would suggest for further reading   of Supreme Court in the matter of

Mathunni Mathai v Hindustan Organics Ltd. AIR 1995 SC 1572



Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register