OBJECT

• The purpose of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is to place

in one single statute different provisions as regards
interpretation of words and legal principles which would
otherwise have to be specified separately in many
different Acts and Regulations
• Amend and consolidate the laws relating to General
clauses of 1868 and 1887
 PLAY

• The Act gives a clear suggestion for the conflicting provisions

and differentiates the legislation according to the
commencement and enforcement to avoid uncertainty.
 PURPOSE
• The Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar, It stated
that the purpose of this Act is to place in one single Statute
different provisions as regards interpretation of words and
legal principles which would otherwise have to be specified
separately in many different Acts and regulations. The purpose
of the Act is to avoid superfluity of language in statutes
wherever it is possible to do so
 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
• A claim of the right to catch fish came under the consideration of the court in Ananda
Behera v. State of Orissa. The court tended to decide whether the right to catch or carry
fish is a movable or immovable property. It was observed,

• The S.3 Transfer of Property Act does not define the term except to say that immovable
property does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass.
• Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as under: - “Immovable property”
shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or
permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth;”
• As fish do not come under that category the definition of TPA, the General Clauses Act
applies and as a profit a prendre ( catch) is regarded as a benefit arising out of land it
follows that it is immovable property within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act.”
• Thus, the court construed “right to catch or carry fish‟ as an immovable property
 GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897
• Being an item on List III- Concurrent List, the Central Government as
well as the various State Governments can pass their respective
General Clauses Acts. Ex. Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act,
1891, Maharastra General Clauses Act, 1904, Jammu Kasmir General
Clauses Act, 1977.
• (Gyan Chand Jain v.Bishambhar Sahai 1968 ALJ 787).
• It must be noted that the Act if it provides a specific definition or a
meaning to the term then the definition of the Act would prevail,
however in absence of any definition recourse can be made to the
General Clauses Act.
• Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides definitions
of 66 words which will apply to all Central Acts and
Regulations made after the commencement of the General
Clauses Act, 1897. However, the definition given in the
General Clauses Act, 1897 will apply only if there is nothing
inconsistent or repugnant to the context of the latter Act
• (Ramanathan Chettiar v.KMOLM Sonasundaram Chettiar AIR
1964 Mad.527). The General Clauses Act, 1897 is not meant
to give a hide-bound meaning to terms and phrases generally
occurring in legislation.
 COVERAGE
• Amendment, repeal and re-enactment of statutes and their
effect and time of operation.
• Scope of the term “Law”, i.e. what it includes and what it
excludes.
• Prospective and retrospective operation of statutes.
• Certain presumptions which are implied in the interpretation
of a statue when nothing is stated therein.
 COVERAGE – CONTD…
• Mode of service of notices and documents and certain
presumptions thereto, for example that the refusal of a
Registered Letter by the addressee amounts to valid service –
section 27.
• Computation of limitation period and distances, when nothing
is mentioned in the particular statutory enactment.
• Certain constitutional principles like Nemo debet bis vexari pro
una et eadem causa (No person shall be twice vexed for the
same offence i.e. the Doctrine of double jeopardy as per
Article 20 of the Constitution)- section 26
• Miscellaneous matters relating to the presumptions, scope and
limitations of powers, appointments and interpretation of
statutory terms, when nothing is mentioned in the particular
statutory enactment – section 25 to 30.
 What is the definition of “person” as per the
General Clauses Act, 1897?
• Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 states that
“Person” shall include any company or association or body of
individuals, whether incorporated or not. However, according
to section 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
• “Person” Includes –
i. An Individual,
ii. A Hindu undivided family.
 iii. A Company,
iv. A firm,
v. An association of persons or a body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not
vi. Iv. A local authority, and
vii. Every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the
preceding sub-clauses.
 Shri Lakshni Cotton traders Ltd V.Central wareHousing
Corporation and others
• The word 'person’ includes a company or not . Person has been defined in Section
2(1)(m) – COPRA-1986
• to include : (i) a firm whether registered or not; (ii) a Hindu undivided family; (iii) a
co-operative society; (iv)every other association of persons whether registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not.
• This definition in the Act is inclusive and thus resort may appropriately be had to the
General Clauses Acts to ascertain the meaning of expression "person".
• A person is not only a natural person but also a person created under a statute such as
a Company incorporated under the Companies Act.
• A Company is a legal entity under the provisions of Companies
Act, 1956. The word person is not defined in the Companies
Act, but by virtue of the definition contained in Section 3(42)
General Clauses Act, 1897, it shall include any Company or
association or body of individuals. Thus, a person within the
scope of Consumer Protection Act shall include a Company. A
consumer under the Act is not necessarily an individual or a
natural person, but also a company or partnership by virtue of
the definition contained in the General Clauses Acts, as also
SUMMARY
SUMMARY – CONTD….
REPEAL AND DELETION
SINGULAR - PLURAL
ANALYSIS