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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more