General Clauses Act, 1897

The Supreme Court restored a cheque-dishonour conviction that the Kerala High Court had set aside because the statutory demand notice was received by the accused's mother, not by him. Once the notice is sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address, service is presumed and the drawer must rebut it (paras 24, 32, 35). The Court declared M.D. Thomas v. P.S. Jaleel, which had held service on the drawer's wife insufficient, per incuriam (para 30).

The Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to applications under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act only when the three-month limitation period ends on a day the court is closed. It does not help when only the further 30-day condonable period expires during a vacation, and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked because the Limitation Act applies (Narasimha J., para 35).

The Rajasthan High Court held that higher-ranked NEET-UG 2024 candidates could not be ousted from the Stray Vacancy Round merely because their Class XI marksheets did not show Biology, when their Class XII marksheets did (paras 13.6, 14.2). Document verification was held during the Deepawali holidays in a three-hour window, and the school certificates produced on 31.10.2024 were held to be in time (paras 13.3-13.4, 15). Treating merit as the exclusive criterion, the Court cancelled two lower-ranked candidates' allotments (paras 15-17).

A five-Judge Constitution Bench held that the 2014 declaration in Subramanian Swamy striking down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act operates retrospectively. Section 6A, which barred the CBI from inquiring into or investigating corruption allegations against officers of Joint Secretary level and above without prior Central Government approval, is held not in force from its insertion on 11.09.2003. Article 20(1) was held inapplicable because the provision was only procedural (paras 36, 43).

A five-Judge Constitution Bench held that the National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive power over “services” under Entry 41 of the State List, except services relating to public order, police and land. Article 239AA(3)(a) excludes only Entries 1, 2 and 18, and the phrase “insofar as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories” cannot exclude more. The Lieutenant Governor is bound by the elected government's decisions on services (paras 160, 162, 164).

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the man who shot Sant Longowal in 1985 under the TADA Act of 1985, which allowed only death for a terrorist act causing death, but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment (paras 24, 37). Because Section 25 of TADA 1987 overrides inconsistent enactments, "the exclusivity of the extreme sentence contained in Section 3(2) of TADA 1985 must stand superseded by the corresponding benevolent provision in TADA 1987" (para 35).

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not apply to suits, claims or actions filed before it came into force on 19 May 1988, and that Section 4(2) does not bar a benami defence already allowed in a pending suit (para 21). It held that Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare does not lay down correct law on this point (para 21).

The Supreme Court held that the 1976 central amendment to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act impliedly repealed West Bengal's 1973 amendment, which had made adulteration punishable with life imprisonment, so the High Court's order that pending cases proceed under Section 16A stood, with the reduced punishment (paras 4, 15, 17, 26). "The rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law" (para 22).