List of Current Affairs

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri held that, the mortgagee has a right to sell the mortgage property in a public auction if the borrower fails to pay the stipulated instalments. 

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed this in the matter of Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.  

What was the Background of Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. Case? 

• The petitioners filed an instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 3 and 4 to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and transfer Plot No. 1591-B, Sector 23-23A, Gurugram, to the petitioners in the records of respondents No. 2 to 4. The petitioners also sought a re-allotment letter confirming the sale conducted by respondent No. 5 on behalf of the State Bank of India under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act). 
• Respondent No. 5, under the provisions of the Act, sold property No. 1591-BP, Sector 23-23A, Gurugram, via public auction for Rs. 2,28,37,425/- towards the property cost and Rs. 1,72,575/- towards TDS. The petitioners were issued a letter of acceptance of the bid dated 06.02.2020. 
• After the payment was made, respondent No. 5 issued a sale certificate in favor of the petitioners for the property, and possession was handed over by the District Magistrate of Gurugram on 12th October 2021. 
• On 06th July 2020, respondent No. 5 requested respondent No. 2 for the issuance of the NOC for the transfer of the property in the records of the respondents. On 14th August 2020, respondent No. 2 issued a letter directing respondent No. 3 to instruct respondent No. 5 to apply for re-allotment in the name of the petitioners. 
• Respondent No. 5 subsequently requested respondent No. 4 to complete the formalities for updating the records in favor of the petitioners, but the respondents have yet to address the petitioners’ grievances, causing them irreparable loss and injury, as they are unable to use the property. 
• Respondents contended that although they permitted the State Bank of India to create a mortgage on the property, no specific permission was granted for the sale of the property through public auction, and therefore, the sale is not valid without an NOC. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the respondents’ contention, which argued that the sale of the property was flawed because no No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued by the concerned authorities before the public auction, was meritless. 
• The Court concluded that once the respondents permitted the creation of a mortgage on the subject plot, this permission implicitly extended to the right of the lending institution to sell the property through a public auction in case of the borrower’s default. 
• The Court emphasized that the inherent right of the mortgagee to auction the property to recover the loan was not negated by the lack of a specific NOC for the sale, as the NOC for creating the mortgage was considered sufficient. 
• The Court noted that the respondents did not raise any other objections concerning the sale, such as allegations of illegality or collusion in the auction process. As such, the Court found that the objections raised regarding the absence of the NOC were baseless. 
• Based on the above observations, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing respondents No. 3 and 4 to issue the NOC and transfer the property to the petitioners’ name in the records of the concerned authorities. Additionally, the Court ordered the issuance of the re-allotment letter confirming the sale by respondent No. 5 on behalf of the State Bank of India. 

What are the Rights of Mortgagee under Transfer of Property Act? 

• Right to Foreclosure or Sale (Section 67): 
  • The mortgagee has the right to foreclose (bar the mortgagor from redemption) or sell the property when the mortgage-money becomes due.
• Right to Sue for Mortgage-Money (Section 68):  
  • The mortgagee can file a suit to recover the mortgage-money if: 
  • The mortgagor personally agreed to repay. 
  • The mortgaged property is destroyed without the mortgagee’s fault. 
  • The mortgagee loses security due to the mortgagor’s wrongful act. 
  • In a simple mortgage, the mortgagor defaults on repayment.
• Right to Sale of Property (Section 69 & 69A): 
  • In English mortgages and where explicitly agreed in the mortgage deed, the mortgagee can sell the property without court intervention. 
  • In other cases, court permission is required for sale. 
• Right to Possession (Usufructuary Mortgage – Section 67A): 
  • In a usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagee has the right to retain possession and collect rents/profits until the mortgage is fully repaid.
• Right to Accession (Section 70): 
  • If any improvements or additions are made to the mortgaged property, the mortgagee can treat them as part of the security.
• Right to Renewed Lease (Section 71): 
  • If the mortgaged property is leased, and the mortgagee renews the lease, it will be held as part of the mortgage security.
• Right to Spend for Preservation of Property (Section 72): 
  • The mortgagee can spend money to prevent the property from damage or loss and recover the amount from the mortgagor.
• Right to Insurance Money [Section 76(c)]: 
  • If the property is insured and is damaged, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the insurance money as security.

What are the Rights of Mortgagor under Transfer of Property Act? 

• Right of Mortgagor to Redeem (Section 60): This provision provides that upon providing reasonable notice regarding the specified time and location, the mortgagor has the entitlement to redeem the mortgage by paying the outstanding mortgage amount and: 
  • Require the mortgagee to deliver the mortgage-deed and the mortgaged property and documents in his possession or under his power. 
  • Recover the possession of the mortgaged property from the mortgagee. 
  • To get the property re-transferred to him or a third person at his own cost by the mortgagee at the mortgagor's desire or get an acknowledgement registered by the mortgagee extinguishing his right over the property. 
• Right to Transfer to the Third Party (Section 60A): 
  • As per this section, the mortgagor possesses the right to request the transfer of both the mortgage deed and the mortgaged property to a third party as per the mortgagor's preference. 
  • If the mortgagor has fulfilled his obligation by paying the mortgage amount, it is obligatory for the mortgagee to comply with this request. 
• Right to Inspection and Production of Documents (Section 60B): 
  • The mortgagor, exercising their right to redemption, can, at their own expense, request to inspect and obtain copies or extracts of the documents pertaining to the mortgaged property and the mortgage deed held by the mortgagee, upon successfully reimbursing the expenses incurred by the mortgagee on their behalf, at any reasonable time. 
• Right to Redeem Separately or Simultaneously (Section 61): 
  • In the absence of a contractual agreement, when multiple mortgages are executed in favor of the same mortgagee, the mortgagor has the right to redeem one or more of these mortgage deeds simultaneously or any one deed separately upon payment of the outstanding dues for the specific mortgage(s). 
• Right of Usufructuary Mortgagor to Recover Possession (Section 62): In a usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagor has a right to recover possession of the mortgage deed from the mortgagee: 
  • Where the mortgagee is authorized to pay himself the mortgage-money from the rents and profits of the property when such money is paid. 
  • Where the mortgagee is authorized to pay himself from such rents and profits or arty part thereof a part only of the mortgage-money, when the term (if any), prescribed for the payment of the mortgage-money has expired and the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee the mortgage-money or the balance thereof or deposits it in Court as hereinafter provided. 
• Accession to Mortgaged Property (Section 63): 
  • The mortgagor is entitled to the mortgaged property accession upon redemption, if any, during the mortgage's continuance when in possession of the mortgagee if a contract for the contrary does not exist. 
  • The mortgagee has no right to claim the accession when redeemed by the mortgagor. 
• Improvements to Mortgaged Property (Section 63A): 
  • If a property is mortgaged, and the mortgagee makes improvements to the property while holding it as security, the mortgagor has a right to those improvements when they redeem the property. This entitlement exists unless there is a specific contract stating otherwise. 
  • If the mortgagee makes necessary improvements to preserve the property from damage or deterioration, to maintain the property's value as security, or in compliance with a lawful order from a government authority, the mortgagor is generally responsible for paying the cost of those improvements. 
• Renewal of Mortgaged Lease (Section 64): 
  • If a mortgaged property is in the possession of the mortgagee and has a lease in existence, and the mortgagee renews the lease during the mortgage period, the mortgagor has the right to receive the benefits of that lease renewal, unless there is a specific provision in the mortgage contract that states otherwise. 
• Implied Contracts by Mortgagor (Section 65): In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the mortgagor shall be deemed to contract with the mortgagee: 
  • That the interest which the mortgagor professes to transfer to the mortgagee subsists, and that the mortgagor has power to transfer the same. 
  • That the mortgagor will defend, or, if the mortgagee be in possession of the mortgaged property, enable him to defend, the mortgagor’s title thereto. 
  • That the mortgagor will, so long as the mortgagee is not in possession of the mortgaged property, pay all public charges accruing due in respect of the property. 
• Mortgagor's Power to Lease (Section 65A): 
  • While in lawful possession of the property, the mortgagor has the right to make the lease, which shall be binding on the mortgagee unless otherwise stated in the mortgage. 
• Right in the Case of Waste (Section 66): 
  • Based on this provision, the mortgagor is generally not held responsible for any natural deterioration of the property. 

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court   

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Singh and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal  held that Bar enrollment is not a justified prerequisite for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2024. 

• The Chhattisgarh High Court  held this in the matter of Ms. Vinita Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2025).

What was the Background of Ms. Vinita Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh? 

• Ms. Vinita Yadav, a government servant and Law Graduate from Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, sought to appear in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2024 conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. 
• On 5th July 2024, the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh issued a Gazette Notification substituting clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. 
• The amended rule mandated that candidates must not only possess a law degree from a recognized university but also be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. 
• Subsequently, on 23th December, 2024, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2024, which incorporated this requirement of registration as an Advocate. 
• The petitioner, being a full-time government employee, was statutorily barred from enrolling as an Advocate under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which prohibits enrollment for individuals engaged in any full-time occupation. 
• The last date for submission of online applications for the examination was 24th January, 2025. 
• The petitioner filed a writ petition (WPS No. 608 of 2025) challenging the amended rule and the examination advertisement on the grounds that it unduly restricted her right to participate in the recruitment process. 
• The petitioner contended that several other states including Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Delhi do not impose similar enrollment requirements for judicial service examinations. 
• The petitioner argued that in Madhya Pradesh, being a practicing Advocate is merely an optional requirement for appearing in the Civil Judge examination. 
• The petitioner cited Supreme Court decisions in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75), Ajay Hasia Etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Others (AIR 1981 SC 487), and All India Judges' Association & Others v. Union of India & Others (2002) 4 SCC 247 to support her contentions. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court prima facie observed that the petitioner's contentions appeared to have substantial merit warranting consideration. 
• The Court held that in a selection process, the scope for candidates' participation should not be narrowed down by imposing unwarranted conditions. 
• The Court opined that a more inclusive approach would allow for a wider pool of candidates, potentially resulting in the selection of better qualified individuals for the judicial service. 
• The Court reasoned that a Law Graduate, whether enrolled as an Advocate or not, would undergo identical scrutiny during the selection process, rendering the enrollment distinction largely immaterial. 
• The Court acknowledged that the imposition of such a condition appeared to lack rational basis when examined considering the Supreme Court judgments cited by the petitioner. 
• The Court determined that as an interim measure, the petitioner and similarly situated candidates should be permitted to participate in the recruitment process subject to fulfillment of all other criteria. 
• The Court directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to extend the deadline for submission of online applications, preferably by one month from 22nd January 2025. 
• The Court ordered that the Commission should permit candidates to submit their applications even without enrollment as Advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961. 
• The Court specified that its order would operate in rem (affecting all similarly situated individuals) rather than in personam (limited to the petitioner alone). 
• The Court requested the High Court of Chhattisgarh (on its administrative side) to reconsider the impugned amendment in light of the Supreme Court judgments referenced by the petitioner. 
• The Court clarified that participation of non-enrolled candidates in the recruitment process would remain subject to the final outcome of the petition. 
• The Court Stated that the Apex Court is already seized of the issue and further having regard to the fact that the issue involved in the present petition is similar in nature, we deem it appropriate to adjourn this case at this stage keeping it pending awaiting the orders of the Apex Court in WP(C)No. 1022/1989.

What is the Matter of All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (WP(C)No. 1022/1989)? 

Supreme Court Order in All India Judges Association case (19th April 2022) 

• This order addresses modifications to the promotion requirements for judicial officers to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS): 
• Original Requirements:  
  • Previously required 5 years of service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) to be eligible for promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).  
  • LDCE quota was reduced from 25% to 10% in a 2010 order. 
• Issue Identified:  
  • Delhi has a unique situation where Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) perform the same work. 
  • The ratio of positions is 80:20. 
  • This creates a bottleneck where qualified candidates can't meet the 5-year Senior Division requirement. 
• Modification Granted:  
  • The Court modified its previous orders to allow judicial officers with either: a) 7 years qualifying service (5 years as Junior Division + 2 years as Senior Division), OR b) 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (Junior Division). 
  • This modification applies only to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. 

Recent Supreme Court Order (March 2025) 

• This appears to be a more recent order regarding judicial appointments in Gujarat: 
• Issue: Whether minimum years of practice as a lawyer should be required for applying to JMFC and Civil Judge (Junior Division) positions. 
• Status:  
  • This matter is pending before a three-judge bench. 
  • The case has been heard and reserved for judgment. 
• Court Action:  
  • Stayed the recruitment proceedings initiated by Gujarat High Court. 
  • Issued notices to Gujarat High Court and State of Gujarat. 
  • Set return date as 18th March 2025. 

What is the Current status of Chhattisgarh Judicial Exam? 

• The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) had initially announced the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination 2024 with applications to be submitted between 26th December 2024, and 24th January 2025. 
• Following the High Court's interim order in Ms. Vinita Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 608 of 2025), the Commission has extended the application deadline to 23rd February 2025, through a corrigendum issued on 23rd January 2025. 
• The High Court has directed that law graduates who are not enrolled as advocates can now provisionally apply for the examination, subject to the final outcome of the petition. 
• The matter is currently pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court with the next hearing scheduled for 17th February 2025. 
• The case bears similarities to the Madhya Pradesh judicial service recruitment controversy, where examinations proceeded despite ongoing litigation regarding eligibility criteria. 
• In the Madhya Pradesh case, the preliminary examination was conducted in January 2024 while challenges to the amended rules were still pending before the Supreme Court. 
• Based on the Madhya Pradesh precedent, there is a possibility that the Chhattisgarh preliminary examination might proceed as scheduled on 18th May 2025, despite the ongoing legal challenge. 
• However, this would be subject to there being no explicit stay order from the court and would likely be conditional on the understanding that non-enrolled candidates' participation remains provisional. 
• The case is complicated by the fact that the Supreme Court is currently seized of a similar matter regarding minimum practice requirements for judicial appointments in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India (WP(C)No. 1022/1989). 
• Candidates should prepare for the examination while staying alert to potential legal developments that could affect the examination schedule or eligibility criteria.