In 2024, New Limited, a company specializing in international trade, needed to send an important notice to one of its clients, Mr. A, regarding a…

In 2024, New Limited, a company specializing in international trade, needed to send an important notice to one of its clients, Mr. A, regarding a contractual amendment. According to the company's internal regulations and the contract terms, the notice had to be served by post. On April 15, 2024, the company's legal department prepared the notice and addressed it to Mr. A at his registered address. The notice was properly addressed, prepaid, and sent via registered post with acknowledgment due to ensure the highest level of confirmation for delivery. A few days later, on April 20, 2024, the notice was returned with a stamp indicating that it was "not claimed" by Mr. A. The legal department recorded the return of the notice and noted the endorsement. The company's legal advisor referred to past case laws for similar scenarios to ensure that the notice was considered legally served under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. They reviewed the following precedents: United Commercial Bank v. Bhim Sain Makhija: It was noted that merely sending a notice by registered post without the acknowledgment due did not provide sufficient legal protection for proving service. Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh: This case demonstrated that if a notice sent by registered post was returned with a refusal endorsement, it was considered served. Smt. Vandana Gulati v. Gurmeet Singh alias Mangal Singh: It was established that if a notice sent by registered post to a proper address was returned with an endorsement like "not claimed", it was deemed served unless proven otherwise. On the basis of above facts and by applying applicable provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the applicable Rules therein, choose the correct answer (one out of four) of the following Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs 9-11 of 2 marks each) given herein under: