Skip to main content

Registered letters can't be returned without proper reason: Madras high court

The Madras high court has frowned on mechanical return of registered letters as "unclaimed" by postmen, and said that in case they could not be delivered, proper reasons must be given.

Justice S Tamilvanan, underscoring the importance of a registered post in litigations and other matters, said that when people pay a fee and affix sufficient postal stamp, the postal authorities or postmen must discharge their duties in a responsible manner. The postman should make it clear as to whether the registered letter was served on the addressee or refused by the addressee or no addressee was found in the given address, the judge said.

Passing orders on a matrimonial litigation, wherein a Chennai-based woman wanted her divorce proceedings to be transferred from a Puducherry court to a Chennai court, the judge said the woman's notice sent by registered post had been returned undelivered with a simple endorsement "unclaimed." Slamming the practice, Justice Tamilvanan said the court was ofthe view that the reason for the non-delivery of the notice had not been properly explained to the person who sent it.

"The endorsement 'not claimed' is required to be made in a responsible manner by the postman or the official of the postal department, so as to convey proper reason and to bring out the fact as to under what circumstances the registered letter could not be served on the addressee by the postman," the judge said.

In case the registered letter is delivered to a person other than the addressee, the postman must obtain clear endorsement and explain the relationship of the signatory who received the letter on behalf of the addressee, Justice Tamilvanan said.

Return of registered letters with a comment "unclaimed" or with some other improper endorsement would cause inconvenience to the general public and the person seeking justice through court of law, the judge said, adding: "Service of notice by registered post plays a vital role in deciding several cases."

He then directed the chief post-master general of Tamil Nadu to give suitable instructions to all postal department officials to follow the guidelines laid down by the court in this case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more