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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more