Find what the courts have already said.
Search 18 million+ judgments — Supreme Court and all 25 High Courts. Ask about a specific case, or describe your facts and find the precedent that fits.
Demand notice under s.138 returned unclaimed — is service presumed?
Citation detail
C. C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed
(2007) 6 SCC 555
A notice correctly addressed and returned unclaimed is deemed served. The drawer who avoids the postman cannot found a defence on non-receipt.
You know the point. You do not know which of eighteen million judgments has already decided it, or whether the one you remember from years ago has since been distinguished.
Describe the situation, not the keyword
Put in the facts as they happened, rather than guessing the term a judgment might use. Case Law returns a ranked list of the judgments that address the situation, closest match first.
Demand notice under s.138 returned unclaimed — is service presumed?
- #1Supreme CourtVerified ✓
C. C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed
(2007) 6 SCC 555
- #2Supreme CourtVerified ✓
Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd.
(1999) 3 SCC 1
- #3Supreme CourtVerified ✓
K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan
(1999) 7 SCC 510
A specific case, by name or citation
Look it up by name or by citation string and get the case in full — the details, the holding, and where it sits, Supreme Court or which High Court.
Look up
C. C. Alavi Haji · (2007) 6 SCC 555
- Supreme CourtVerified ✓
C. C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed
(2007) 6 SCC 555
Precedent grouped by what it decided
Cases that decided the same point are grouped by the proposition they support, so you see the position and how many judgments hold it — not a wall of results for the same keyword.
Demand notice under s.138 returned unclaimed — is service presumed?
Service presumed when notice returned unclaimed
C. C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed
(2007) 6 SCC 555
Fifteen days run from deemed service
Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd.
(1999) 3 SCC 1
Every result cited, so it can be checked
Court, case name, and citation string are shown for every result, so what you rely on can be verified before it goes into a filing.
Demand notice under s.138 returned unclaimed — is service presumed?
- #1CitedSupreme CourtVerified ✓
C. C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed
(2007) 6 SCC 555
- #2CitedSupreme CourtVerified ✓
Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd.
(1999) 3 SCC 1
- #3CitedSupreme CourtVerified ✓
K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan
(1999) 7 SCC 510
What it draws on.
18 million+ judgments — Supreme Court and all 25 High Courts
A corpus refreshed periodically, not a one-time index
What it does not do.
These are the limits as they stand today. If one of them is a problem for the way you work, it is better to know before the evaluation than during it.
It does not cover district court orders
Case Law covers Supreme Court and High Court judgments. District court orders are not indexed here — for those, use Case Status.
It does not tell you what will happen in your matter
It tells you what has been decided, and where. Applying that to your facts, and deciding what it means for your matter, is your call.
It does not draft
Turning a precedent into an argument or a filing is DocBare's job, not Case Law's.
It does not track hearings
Next dates and case status live outside Case Law. It searches judgments; it does not follow a matter.