List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end only when decree of eviction is passed. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Amritpal Jagmohan Sethi v. Haribhau Pundlik Ingole (2025). 

What was the Background of Amritpal Jagmohan Sethi v. Haribhau Pundlik Ingole (2025) Case?   

• In the present facts, appellant was the tenant and landlord was the respondent. 
• The Respondent filed a suit for eviction on various grounds under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 
• A decree of possession was passed by the Trial Court and the appellant was evicted. 
• The issue in this case was regarding direction issued in the operative part of the decree which reads as: “ Inquiry into future mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12(1)(c) of Code of Civil Procedure be made from the date of suit till delivery of vacant peaceful possession of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff.” 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that it is a settled position of law that the relationship of tenant and landlord comes to an end only when the decree of eviction is passed. 
• The Court modified the operative part of the decree which read as follows: 
  • Inquiry into future mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12(1)(c) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be made from 29th March, 2014 till the delivery of the vacant possession of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff. 
• The Court thus allowed the appeals subject to the above modification. 

What is Mesne Profits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

• Section 2 (12) - Definition: 
  • Mesne profits are money owed by someone who wrongfully possessed property to the rightful owner. 
  • This money includes:  
    • Profits actually received from the property while wrongfully possessing it 
    • Profits that could have been reasonably earned with ordinary effort 
    • Interest on these profits 
  • Profits that came from improvements made by the wrongful possessor are excluded. 
• Order XX Rule 12 - Decree for Possession and Mesne Profits: 
  • Rule 12 (1) applies to lawsuits where someone is trying to recover possession of real property (land, buildings) AND seeking rent or mesne profits. 
  • The Court can issue decree covering: 
    • Possession of the property 
    • Money owed before the lawsuit was filed 
    • Money owed during and after the lawsuit 
  • The court can order that the rightful owner gets back possession of the property. 
  • Pre- law suit rent : The court can either:  
    • Directly state the amount of rent owed from before the lawsuit began, or 
    • Order an investigation to determine this amount 
  • Pre-law suit mesne profits : The court can either:  
    • Directly state the amount of mesne profits owed from before the lawsuit began, or 
    • Order an investigation to determine this amount 
  • Future money owed: The court can order an inquiry into rent or mesne profits starting from when the lawsuit was filed until one of these happens first:  
    • The rightful owner gets possession back 
    • The wrongful possessor gives up possession with proper legal notice 
    • Three years pass from the date of the court's decree 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan   has held that a Registering Authority cannot refuse to register a document for lack of proof of the vendor’s title, striking down Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules as unconstitutional. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors. ? 

• On 2nd September 2022, one Jayaraman Mudaliyar executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant K. Gopi in respect of a property. 
• The Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed, prompting the appellant to file a writ petition challenging this refusal. 
• After the writ petition was dismissed, the appellant preferred an appeal to the District Registrar against the Sub-Registrar's order. 
• The District Registrar allowed the appeal on 4th September 2023 and directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider his decision. 
• The Sub-Registrar then directed the appellant to resubmit the document along with proof of the vendor's title to transfer the property. 
• When the appellant again submitted the sale deed for registration on 3rd October 2023, the Sub-Registrar once again refused registration. 
• The appellant filed another writ petition against this refusal, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. 
• A writ appeal against this rejection was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on 20th March 2024. 
• The High Court held that under Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, the Sub-Registrar was entitled to refuse registration on the ground that the appellant's vendor had not established his title and ownership. 
• The appellant's claim was based on an unregistered Will, and the High Court noted that when doubt arises and legal heirs are not impleaded, parties should approach the Civil Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that no provision under the Registration Act, 1908 confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document on the ground that the documents regarding the title of the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established. 
• The Court noted that the registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant and has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. 
• Even if an executant executes a document for a property in which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse registration if all procedural compliances are made and necessary stamp duty and registration fees are paid. 
• The Court held that Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, as it improperly confers power on the registering officer to verify the title of the executant. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that registration merely transfers whatever rights the executant possesses; if the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer. 
• The Court declared Rule 55A(i) ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, as the rule-making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a rule inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act.

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 

• Registration Act, 1908 - The primary legislation governing the registration of documents in India. 
• Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 - The provision provides the power of the Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules consistent with the Act. 
  • Section 69(1)(a) through (j) enumerates specific areas where rules can be made, including safe custody of documents, language usage, territorial divisions, fines regulation, registering officer discretion, form of memoranda, book authentication, instrument presentation, index contents, holiday declarations, and general proceedings regulation. 
  • Section 69(2) requires that rules made under this section must be submitted to the State Government for approval, published in the Official Gazette, and only then have effect as if enacted in the Act. 
  • None of the rule-making powers listed in Section 69(1)(a) through (j) authorizes the creation of rules allowing registering authorities to refuse registration based on title verification. 
  • The Supreme Court determined that all rules made under Section 69 must be "consistent with this Act" - this key requirement formed the basis for declaring Rule 55A(i) ultra vires. 
  • The Court held that Rule 55A(i) exceeded the scope of these enumerated powers and contradicted the fundamental principle that registration authorities are not empowered to adjudicate on matters of title. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan stated that SEBI's subsequent disgorgement order was barred by the principle of res judicata, as it could have been raised in the earlier proceedings. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Securities and Exchange Board of India v.  Ram Kishori Gupta & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Securities and Exchange Board of India v.  Ram Kishori Gupta & Anr? 

• M/s. Vital Communications Limited (VCL), a public limited company listed on major stock exchanges, published misleading advertisements between May-June 2002 regarding buyback of shares, bonus shares, and preferential issues. 
• The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a show-cause notice to VCL and its promoters on 24th May 2005, alleging that these advertisements were designed to artificially inflate share prices from ₹3-12 to ₹30. 
• SEBI's investigation revealed that VCL had allotted 72 lakh equity shares to 15 companies which all shared the same address and were listed as VCL's suppliers, suggesting circular funding where VCL's own funds were indirectly used to purchase its shares. 
• Between May-July 2002, promoter-related entities sold 71.14 lakh shares in the market, taking advantage of artificial demand created by the misleading advertisements. 
• Two investors, Ram Kishori Gupta and Harishchandra Gupta, had purchased 1,71,773 shares of VCL between May-June 2002 based on these misleading advertisements and suffered substantial financial losses. 
• SEBI passed an order on 20.02.2008 restraining VCL and most of its directors from accessing the securities market for two years, but this order was set aside by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) for procedural reasons. 
• After fresh show-cause notices in 2012, SEBI passed another order on 31th July 2014 restraining VCL and 23 other entities from accessing the securities market for specific periods but did not order disgorgement of profits. 
• Following complaints from the Gupta investors, SEBI reopened the matter and passed a new order on 28th September 2018 directing VCL and related entities to disgorge unlawful gains of ₹4,55,91,232/- with 10% interest. 
• VCL and other entities challenged this disgorgement order before SAT, arguing that it was barred by the principle of res judicata as the earlier 2014 order on the same offence had attained finality. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court affirmed that the principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial proceedings, including those under the SEBI Act, 1992, and prevents parties from litigating the same question more than once. 
• The Court observed that SEBI was fully aware of the financial implications of VCL's illegal actions when passing its 2014 order, yet chose not to direct disgorgement at that time despite having the power to do so. 
• The Court noted that once SEBI's 2014 order attained finality (as it was neither challenged nor set aside) and the penalties were served, SEBI could not revisit the same cause of action to pass fresh directions in 2018. 
• The Court invoked the principle of constructive res judicata, holding that since SEBI could have ordered disgorgement in its 2014 proceedings but did not, it was barred from doing so in subsequent proceedings based on the same offence. 
• The Court criticized SEBI's "laidback and indolent approach" and "unconscionable delay" in handling the matter, noting that it took nearly two years after deciding to initiate disgorgement proceedings before actually issuing the show-cause notice. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

• The case primarily involves the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, specifically Section 11 which states SEBI's duties to protect investors and regulate the securities market. 
• Section 11B of the SEBI Act empowers SEBI to issue directions and levy penalties, including directing disgorgement of wrongful gains made through contravention of the Act's provisions. 
  • The Explanation added to Section 11B (effective from 18.07.2013) clarifies that the power to issue directions includes and "always be deemed to have included" the power to direct disgorgement of wrongful gains. 
• Section 11(5) of the SEBI Act (inserted from 18.07.2013) provides that amounts disgorged pursuant to a direction under Section 11B shall be credited to the Investor Protection and Education Fund. 
• Section 15U(1) of the SEBI Act states that the Securities Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by principles of natural justice. 
• The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 1995, particularly Regulations 3, 4, 5(1) & 6(a), which VCL and its promoters allegedly violated. 
• Section 77 of the Companies Act, 1956, concerning restrictions on a company's purchase of its own shares, which VCL allegedly contravened through indirect funding arrangements. 
• Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, embodies the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of matters already finally decided by a competent court or tribunal.