Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 01 To 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 111498A IPC | Magistrate Can't Take Cognizance Merely On Superintendent's Note If Accused Given Clean Chit In Chargesheet: Telangana HCGangadhara Manoj and 3 others vs. State of TSCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 01The Telangana High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance against those accused, against whom a chargesheet is...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 01 To 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 111
Gangadhara Manoj and 3 others vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 01
The Telangana High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance against those accused, against whom a chargesheet is not filed, merely based on a note affixed by the Superintendent of Police on the said charge sheet.
Justice K Surender going further has explained that cognizance cannot be taken against those individuals against whom the investigation did not reveal any cognizable offence. Furthermore, he has iterated that in case the defacto complainant is aggrieved by the findings of the investigation, they are free to file a protest petition. Following which, the Magistrate is bound to record in writing the reasons for summoning the accused against whom no cognizable evidence is found.
Bodugula Brahmaiah and others vs. State of TS
Citiation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 02
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 5(1)(a) of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules 2023 as per which only advocates practicing in the state are eligible to apply for the post of District Judge. It observed that the object of such enactment is to acquire candidates acquainted with the practice of local Court.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar have passed the order in a batch of writs filed by the residents of Andhra Pradesh who were held ineligible to appear for the District Judge selections due to the implementation of the 2023 Rules.
“It is trite law that Union Parliament and State Legislature have plenary powers of legislation within the fields assigned to them and subject to certain constitutional and judicially recognized restrictions can legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively.”
Kamsani Narasamma vs State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 03
The Telangana High Court has held that recovery of non-biological children from the custody of accused does not automatically mean that he is involved in kidnapping/ illegally trafficking minor girls into sex trade, particularly in absence of any material indicating the commission of any alleged offence.
While allowing a revision petition for discharge of the petitioner-accused, Justice N. Tukkaramji said,
"The claim of the prosecution is that as the DNA reports are indicating that the accused are not biologically related to the rescued girls, the accusation of trafficking can be inferred, is not found acceptable, for the reasons that merely as there is variance in the DNA finding, trafficking or commission of any sexual offence or the intention of the accused to commit the offence cannot be presumed unless there is prima facie material supporting the foundational facts."
M D Afsar Pasha vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 04
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the State's Chief Secretary, State Minority Welfare Department, Waqf Board and the District Collector of Vikharabad on a petition challenging allocation of Rs. 2.45 crore government funds to the Tablighi Jamaat for holding a State-wide Ijtema in Vikharabad.
The Islamic congregation is scheduled from January 6th to 8th.
Dr. Dasoju Sravan Kumar vs. The Secretary of Her Excellency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 05
The Telangana High Court has adjourned the matter relating to the Governor's rejection of MLC recommendations made by the cabinet. The Bench asked the state to come to a 'gentleman's understanding' and not precipitate the issue until the next date of hearing.
The Division Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Surepalli Nanda adjourned the plea on the request of the respondents to allow them time to file objections regarding the maintainability of the plea.
“Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 (The Governor) submits that the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners are not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 361 of the Constitution of India. He, however, prays for a short accommodation to enable him to file an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions,” the Court said.
M/s. Telangana Regional Trade Union Council vs. A. Santhi Kumari, IAS,
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 06
The Telangana High Court has issued a contempt notice to the Chief Secretary, Special Chief Secretary, Commissioner of the Labour, and Secretary Printing Press for not revising and publishing the minimum wages in respect of scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as per the earlier directions of the Court in a PIL.
Contempt proceedings were initiated against the State Authorities alleging wilful non-compliance with the aforesaid order of the Court directing the publication of the minimum wages through Government Orders (G.O.'s).
Gadeela Raghuveer Reddy vs. The State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 07
The Telangana High Court has admitted a plea challenging the issuance of Supplementary Sethwar to the extent of 10 acres on alleged Government land wherein, collusion and fraud are alleged against the revenue officials and adjacent land owners.
The petitioner contended that the plea was filed in the interest of the State and its overall well-being. He stated that 449 acres in the Dundigal Village were vested with the government and the government had assigned a portion of that land to persons eligible under the political suffrage-freed fighters' category.
Arige Venkataramaiah vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 08
The Telangana High Court has retracted a NBW (Non-bailable warrant) holding that the accused need not be present during proceedings when his application for recall of NBW was being considered and that the presence of his counsel would be sufficient.
The Bench of Justice P. Madhavi Devi has passed the order in a plea filed by the accused against a docket order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein a petition to set aside his NBW was dismissed for non-appearance before the Court.
“This Court has also perused the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner for his not being able to be present before the trial Court on the dates fixed for his appearance and hearing. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to recall the NBW issued on 05.10.2023 against the petitioner/accused by the trial Court and it is accordingly recalled and the Docket order dt.05.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1114 of 2023 in C.C.No.4637 of 2022 passed by the trial Court is quashed. The trial Court is at liberty to procced with the matter in accordance with law.”
Sri Sidhatha High School vs. Vyshnav Dinesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 09
The Telangana High Court has permitted the Sidhartha High School, Godavarikhani to move a petition for vacating the ad interim order passed by a single judge directing the school to issue transfer certificates within 10 days, as sought by students who used to study there.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar have noted that the single judge bench had passed the order without the appellant/school entering appearance and being heard.
"In view of the fact that the appellant had not entered appearance before the learned Single Judge and was not heard while the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 was passed, we are inclined to permit the appellant to move an application seeking vacation of the ad interim order. In case such an application is made, the learned Single Judge is requested to deal with the same expeditiously."
Vijay Gopal vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 10
The Telangana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a law student for his comment on social media, criticising a Press note issued by the Police Commissioner prohibiting all kinds of assembly during exams.
The student was booked under Sections 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 505(2) (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code.
“In this case, the comment is a general comment though it may not be in good taste but does not appear to have been passed to provoke to break the public peace or to promote feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups or castes or communities by creating/promoting alarming news against the prohibitory order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.”
Atheli Mallikarjun v. S.S.B. Constructions,
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 11
The High Court of Telangana has held that mere negotiations between the parties related to the dispute would not delay the cause of action for the purpose of limitation for the appointment of the arbitrator.
The bench of Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy dismissed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator wherein the cause of action accrued more than 7 years before the date of the application.
P. Krishna Sai Prasad VS. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd of Telangana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 12
The Telangana High Court has upheld a press note issued by the Election Commission of India, notifying the conduct of bye-elections to the vacant seats in the Telangana State Legislative Council.
This was challenged by the National Spokesperson of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS). The main contention of the petitioner was that the press note was not passed in consonance with Article 171 (4).
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti noted that the procedure as stipulated under Article 171 is for vacancies that arise at the end of the term and not casual vacancies which are guided by the provisions of Section 151 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. It said:
“Section 151 of the RP Act, inter alia, provides that when before the expiration of the term of office of a member elected to the Legislative Council of a State becomes vacant or is declared vacant or his election to Legislative Council has been declared void, the Election commission shalt by notification in the official gazette elect a person for the purpose of filling the vacancy so caused. Section 151 of the Rp Act envisages issuance of a separate notification for filling up the vacancies. The press note dated O4.OI.2O24 is in consonance with Section 151 of the Rp Act. Therefore, the contention that the press note is in violation of Article I7l(4) of the Constitution of India does not deserve acceptance.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 13
Nitesh Singh VS. State of TS
The Telangana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under section 5 r/w s.6 of the POCSO Act against an accused for allegedly marrying a minor, holding that the marriage is voidable at the instance of the minor upon attaining majority, if she is unhappy under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Justice T Madhavi Devi has passed the order in a plea filed by the accused under section 482 of IPC to quash the F.I.R registered against him under section 376(2)(n) IPC, 5 r/w 6 of Prevention of Child From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
"Even if it is found that she was aged below 18 years at the time of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is a marriage at the option of the girl after she attains the age of majority. The said Sindhu is happily married with the petitioner and she begot two children out of the wedlock with the petitioner and therefore, no useful purpose would be served at this stage by investigating into her age when there are no allegations of any abuse against her either by the husband or her in-laws. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the aforesaid Crime against the petitioner."
G. SRINIVAS, DIST. ADILABAD vs. MD. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 14
The Telangana High Court has directed the Singareni Collieries Company to reinstate a Badli Filler and pay consequential benefits of 32 years, holding that the Badli Filler/petitioner could not be kept out of service as he was neither issued posting orders after his transfer nor were any disciplinary proceedings initiated to investigate into his apparent unauthorized absence.
The order was passed by Justice Juvvadi Sridevi in a plea seeking to declare the actions of the Coal Company in not permitting the petitioner to discharge his duty despite the issuance of an order in 1992 directing him to report on duty.
Thakur Sundari Bai vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 15
The Telangana High Court has partly allowed the discharge petition moved by a person in the business of blasting rocks, booked under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [attempt to cause explosion] for storing explosives in excess of the prescribed limit.
Justice K. Surender said that for the provision to be attracted, prosecution must prove that the accused "maliciously" attempted to cause an unlawful blast and possesed the substance to "endanger life" or cause serious injury.
"It is not the case of the police that the explosives are kept for making an attempt to cause an explosion or keeping explosives with an intention to endanger life or property. Accordingly, Section 3 of the Act of 1908 is not attracted since there is no explosion which was caused even according to the charge sheet. Section 4 punishes any attempt to cause unlawfully and maliciously, further possessing any explosive substance to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property is made punishable. There is no such allegation in the charge sheet," the order stated.
Telugu Desam Party VS. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 16
Film makers have no unbridled right to tarnish the image and reputation of any political party, the Telangana High Court said recently while quashing the certificate issued to the producers of the Film Vyuham for theatrical release.
The Bench comprising Justice Surepally Nanda allowed a petition filed by Telugu Desham Party which alleged that the movie was defami to many political leaders of the TDP and contended that it covered issued sub-judice.
"...film makers have no unbridled right to tarnish the image and reputation of any individual or political party or Institution. Reputation is the jewel that cannot be bought and is built over the years and a person who is robbed of it is no less than a destitute...The right to preserve ones reputation is acknowledged as a right in rem i.e., a right against the entire world."
G.Shyam Rao vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 17
The Telangana High Court has suspended a Government Order terminating the services of an Additional Public Prosecutor appointed to represent the State before the Sessions Judge, Bodhan till the State files a response in the matter.
The Bench comprising Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy has noted that the termination order was passed without issuance of any notice or conducting an enquiry, thereby violating the principles of Natural Justice.
“A perusal of the impugned order would show that no notice was issued to the petitioner for any explanation nor conducted any enquiry before passing Impugned order, which amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, pending filing of the counter-affidavit, there shall be interim suspension, as prayed for," the Court ordered.
M/s. SNM Developers Private Limited vs. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 18
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by M/s SNM Developers Pvt Limited praying for stoppage of laying of overhead electricity transmission lines over the property of the developers by holding that when the Central Government confers upon any licensee the power to lay electricity lines, the licensee does not need to notify or seek permission from landowners and the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 will apply.
"So far as the submission that the prior consent of the appellant has not been obtained, it is pertinent to note that Rule 3(4) of the 2006 Rules itself provides that the rule shall not effect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of the 2006 Rules apply in case of work contemplated by Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and not under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Admittedly, the work of laying down the transmission line has been completed and the transmission line has been commissioned."
Dr. D. Anvesh Kumar Reddy, VS. UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 19
The Telangana High Court has partially suspended a notification issued by the Director of Medical Education whereby a fine of INR50,00,000/- was sought to be levied on Postgraduate super speciality medical students who failed to report for Compulsory Resident Specialist Posting on 25th January.
The interim order was passed by Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar in a plea by 23 postgraduate students challenging the GO issued in 2017, mandating Compulsory Resident Specialist postings for Super Specialty Post Graduates as a result of which a 50 lakh would be imposed for failure to appear for the resident posting on the stipulated date. Petitioners claimed that such a stipulation was violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The bench noted that the notification was not backed by any statutory provision and also kept in mind the meeting held by the National Medical Commission deciding against the issuance of bond conditions.
"The Government Order dated 06.09.2017 and the conditions stipulated therein were not backed by any statutory power and the National Medical Commissioner in its meeting also held that the medical graduates and post graduates pursuing any course should not be burdened with any bond conditions which is contrary to the principles of natural justice," it said.”
Dr. Dasoju Sravan Kumar vs. The Secretary to Her Excellency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 20
The Telangana High Court has ordered status quo in the matter regarding Governor's rejection of cabinet recommendations for MLC posts.
In December, the Governor rejected the recommendations of the Cabinet Minister to fill up the post of MLC under the governor's quota. After hearing the matter, the Court directed the parties to come up with a gentleman's agreement and not pass any adverse orders.
Since the last date of the hearing, the recommendations of the petitioners were rescinded and the Governor issued another notification nominating alternative individuals.
Public Employment Rules Don't Permit Alteration In Date Of Birth In Service Records, Estoppel Operates Against Employee: Telangana High Court
Sanyasi Rao VS. Hgh Court of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 21
The Telangana High Court has dismissed the claim of a retired Munsif for alteration of date of birth in Service Record, holding that alteration of date of birth based on any judgment, decree, or order of a Civil Court is impermissible under the AP Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 and no indulgence can be shown.
'This Court is of the opinion that the application for change of date of birth made by the petitioner cannot be considered. Rules, 1984 do not permit for alteration of the date of birth entered in the service records. The entries made by the employee are final and binding and the employee is estopped from disputing the correctness of the date of birth. Rules do not permit alteration of date of birth on the basis of any judgement, decree or order of a Civil Court and no indulgence can be shown,' the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti held.
VADLAKONDA SAIDULU, MAHABOOBNAGAR DIST. Vs. P.P. HYD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 22
The Telangana High Court has modified an order of the trial court convicting a man for murder of his wife to that of Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder holding that 'intent' and 'knowledge' should not be used interchangeably and the court must determine whether the accused intended to take the life of an individual with his/her acts.
"No doubt deceased died due to the injury caused by the accused, but the said injury was caused in a fit of anger and he has no intention to kill the deceased. There is thin line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder and this can falls under Section 304 part-II," the Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and P. Sree Sudha said.
Arbitrator Taking A Different View Is Not A Ground To Set Aside Award: Telangana High Court
M/S Nile Ltd. vs Sri Gurdip Singh and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 23
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Justice M.G. Priyadarsini held that the scope of setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 is very limited and can only be set aside if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and there is perversity in the award. Further, it held that the courts should not interfere with the arbitral awards merely because a different view has been taken by the arbitrator based on the evidence and that it should be against public policy or public interest.
Lawyers Filing PILs Need To Show Antecedents, Merely Being A Lawyer Not Enough: Telangana High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 24
The Telangana High Court on Thursday dismissreiterated that merely being a lawyer will not suffice and a petitioner in a public interest litigation must file his/her antecedents.
"You need to give your credentials. Merely being an advocate is not enough, are you really a public spirited person? Are you registered with legal services? Have you taken mediation classes? The problem is that you people don't study the law. Have you studied Balwant Singh Chaufal? What are the guidelines?" remarked the Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti.
East Hyderabad Expressway Limited vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and another.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 25
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy held that the question of whether a claim is barred by limitation time is to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Further, the bench noted that the scope of Section 11(6) in conjunction with Section 11(9) is confined to the appointment of an arbitrator based on the existence of an arbitration agreement and not to examine the merits of the case.
Pillodi Jayamma, vs. State of TS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 26
The Telangana High Court has held that even though the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019, which replaced the 1965 Act, omitted some provisions on procedure, its legislative intent was self-evident in the creation of a provision providing for a no-confidence motion under Section 299, which, in the absence of contrary legislative intent cannot be labelled a statutory inconsistency between the two Acts.
R.Mallesh vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 27
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed against the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited with exemplary costs of 1 lakh, on finding the petitioner guilty of suppressing material facts.
The order was passed by Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka in a Writ petition filed in 2022, challenging the actions of TSSPDCL in the alleged unlawful acquiring of the property of the petitioners to the extent of 2,432 sq yards in Amberpet Village.
Prahitha Construction Private Limited vs Union of India and 3 others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 28
The Telangana High Court has held that Goods and Service Tax (GST) is payable on the transfer of land development rights under a joint development agreement (JDA).
The bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty has dismissed the writ petition filed by the real estate developer assailing the imposition of GST on the transfer of land development rights (TDR) on JDA for residential projects.
Bairam Muralidhar VS. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 29
Telangana High Court has quashed an FIR against a sub-inspector accused of accepting a bribe to not implicate the father of the accused in a kidnapping case. Court held that once a charge sheet was filed, the police official becomes functus officio (one who holds no further official authority) and is not in a position to extend an official favor thus creating doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint. It held:
“The investigating officer becomes functus officio when charge sheet is filed after investigation, unless there would be further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C, which is not the case of the prosecution. The said circumstance creates any amount of doubt regarding the version given by P.W.1 at the time of lodging complaint being correct, since PW1 has knowledge about the charge sheet and the incapacity of the appellant to do any official favor."
M/s Achyutha Electrical and Industries Private Ltd., vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 30
The Telangana High Court has quashed a criminal case against M/s Achyutha Electrical and Industrial Private Ltd on account of the loan availed by it based on fabricated documents from Andhra Bank, holding that although the loan was sanctioned based on fabricated documents, the amount was repaid before the issuance of any proceedings or notice.
“No doubt, fabricated documents were produced for availing loan from Andhra Bank. However, even prior to issuance of any notice or any kind of proceedings either civil or criminal being initiated by the Bank, the amount was repaid. The Bank has ratified the transaction done by the 2nd petitioner and accepted the amounts without any objection. Further, the Bank has not lodged any complaint or proceeded against the 2nd petitioner.” Justice K Surender held.
Athelli Mallikarjun and others vs S.S.B Constructions, Registered Partnership Firm, Secunderabad and another.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 31
The Telangana High Court single bench comprising Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy held that the mere exchange of communications or settlement discussions between the parties does not extend the period of limitation for issuing a notice of arbitration. The bench held that mere negotiations do not delay the cause of action for the purpose of limitation.
The Directorate of Enforcement vs. M/s Karvy Realty India Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 32
The Telangana High Court has held that the 'adjudicating authority' constituted under section 6 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) can be a body consisting of a single individual who need not have experience in the field of law.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti passed the order in a plea filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) represented by the Assistant Director, Revenue Department.
Shakil Aamir VS. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 33
The Telangana High Court suspended the Lookout Circular issued against Ex-MLA Shakil Aamir, which was issued on the allegations that he helped his son escape the scene of an accident.
On 24th December 2023, it is alleged that Sahil Raheel Aamir met with an accident in a prominent locality of Hyderabad, outside the Praja Bhavan. Although there were no casualties, it is alleged that Shakil Aamir, in an attempt to protect his son, tried to replace his presence at the scene of the crime with that of the family driver due to which, the incident garnered substantial attention.
M/s Naolin Infrastructure Private Ltd. vs M/s Kalpana Industries
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 34
The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice Alok Aradhe held that the requirement under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to inform the court regarding the existence of an arbitration clause is fulfilled when a party files an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a commercial court.
Sri Gourishetty Srinivas vs M/s Karvy Data Management Services
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 35
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Justice K Lakshman held that the court can refer a dispute to arbitration unless a party could establish a prima facie case of the non-existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that in cases where doubt arises regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement, the matter should be referred and decided by the arbitrator.
Kambhampati Prabhanjan Rao vs. Bodda Suresh Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
The Telangana High Court has upheld the order of an appellant authority to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in a suit for perpetual injunction to localize the suit property and iterated that a commissioner report is subject to objections, including cross-examination.
The Bench of Justice M.G. Priyadarshini has passed the order in a couple of Civil Revision Petitions challenging a common order passed by the Appellate Court in two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
Tallapelli Kamalamma Died VS. Tallapelli , JannuLudiaBloos
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 37
The Telangana High Court has held that merely because a daughter is of good financial status, it will not automatically deny her a claim in the self-acquired property of her father.
The order was passed by Justice M.G. Priyadarshini in an appeal by a brother against his sister after a partition suit was decreed in her favour. The brother had relied upon a will alleged to have been executed by their father, wherein it was stated that the sister was being disallowed from claiming a share in the self-acquired property of her father due to her good financial status. The trial court disbelieved the alleged will and decreed the suit in favour of the sister.
K. Venkateswara Rao vs Union Of India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 38
The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice M.G. Priyadarsini held that as long as the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure aligns with the agreement between the parties, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not allow a challenge to an award solely on the basis that the composition of the arbitral tribunal conflicts with the provisions of Part I of the Act.
M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs State Of Telangana And Others.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 39
The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice T. Madhavi Devi held that if the facilitation conciliation proceedings are unsuccessful and terminated without any settlement, the council cannot be automatically converted into arbitral proceedings without a prior declaration of failure and termination of the conciliation process.
Pulipati Srinivas VS. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 40
The Telangana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 15 lakh on a petitioner and advocate for approaching the Court with unclean hands and suppressing material information.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka passed the order in a writ petition after noting that the petitioner's counsel on two previous occasions had been warned about the dissatisfaction of the Court due to his unbecoming conduct and for wasting judicial time by filing a case with suppressed facts.
KOWLUR ARCHANA vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 41
The Telangana High Court has held that once it is established that a contract entered into between the government and a private party is in the nature of a commercial contract, merely because of allegations that the subject premise was seized by the authorities under the capacity of the State, that by itself would not convert the inherent nature of the dispute into a public law dispute.
With that observation, Justice T. Vinod Kumar held that the same could not be adjudicated under Writ jurisdiction and directed Kotagiri Ajay Kumar, the petitioner/lessee to work out the remedies available to him under the Civil law. Relying upon Joshi Technologies International Inc v. Union of India the Bench held that there is a clear distinction carved out between private law and public law.
Medasani Shiva Bhargavi VS. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 42
The Telangana High Court has dismissed the plea of a veterinary student challenging the attendance exemption denied to her despite her being unable to attend college due to rheumatoid arthritis, holding that attending classes is critical to the success of a student.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti while dismissing the appeal have noted that the student had failed to challenge the Academic Regulation of the University, namely 10.7 (a) and 10.7 (b) that make it mandatory for a student to have a minimum attendance of 75%. It said:
The purpose and object of the aforesaid Regulation is to ensure that the student who takes admission in the course attends the course so that he/she can successfully appear in the examinations. Admittedly, the appellant has not secured 75% attendance in the first year B.V.Sc., course. The appellant in the facts of the case has not approached this Court diligently. Ordinarily, the appellant would have been eligible for re-admission to the first-year course. Admittedly, the academic session for the first year B.V.Sc., course has commenced from 05.10.2023 and 25% of the classes have already been completed. Therefore, in the facts of the case, no relief can be granted to the appellant.”
Pareekshith Reddy Pesarikayala vs. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 43
The Telangana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 38(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act) and Rule 5.7.1 of the Election Commission of India's Handbook for Candidates (the Handbook).
The provisions and the rule which is analogous to it, state that a list of validly nominated candidates is to be prepared giving priority in the order of arrangement to the candidates from recognised parties following candidates from registered parties, and others.
Jangam Anil Kumar vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 44
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated under section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) based on a compromise decree.
It held that when an offense arises out of a domestic dispute and is resolved, the Court may quash the FIR based on a compromise entered into between the parties.
The order was passed by Justice K Sujana in a criminal petition seeking the quash the proceedings initiated against the accused under section 307 of the IPC for allegations of attempt to murder.
Moses Areta vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 45
The Telangana High Court has held that a delay in producing an accused before a Magistrate of another State, in the absence of a transit warrant will render the arrest illegal.
The order was passed by Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, in a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-accused challenging a remand order by the Magistrate, despite the accused being produced before the Magistrate 24 hours after his arrest.
M/s. Bollant Industries Pvt. Ltd VS. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 46
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 which empowers apartment associations to disconnect essential services like water and electricity from residents who fail to pay maintenance charges.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar observed,
“It may be noticed that an association is required to provide essential services to the apartment owners who reside in the building. At the time of purchasing of the flat, the apartment owner agrees to pay the charges due to association under the byelaws. Funds are required by the association to undertake the activity of maintenance of the building. In the absence of any power to recover the amount due to the association, the very object of providing maintenance charges would be like a toothless tiger. Therefore, the legislative wisdom has provided in Section 21 of the 1987 Act that the manager or board of managers of an association shall have power to cutoff, withhold, curtail or reduce any essential supply or service.”
Siddaboina Radhika VS. Bairaboina Santhosh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
The Telangana High Court has held that a certified copy of a registered sale deed is not an acceptable substitute for original documents when attempting to compare signatures in a loan guarantee dispute.
This decision arose from a case where the petitioner (defendant before the trial court) denied signing a loan guarantee agreement and sought to send a certified copy of a sale deed containing her signature for comparison with the disputed agreement.
Sri Peechara Venkateshwar Rao vs. Sri Juvvadi Vamshi Krishna
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 48
The Telangana High Court has held that a Family Court is not strictly bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code and if required may lay down its own procedure in order to arrive at the truth of the matter.
The order was passed by Justice T. Vinod Kumar while addressing whether a photocopy of a settlement deed could be introduced as secondary evidence in a family Court petition despite the absence of any foundation laid in the pleadings.
M/S. IMG ACADEMIES BHARAT PRIVATE LIMITED,vs. GOVT OF AP., REP BY SECY, LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT AND 4
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 49
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of the Telangana Government Property (Preservation, Protection and Resumption) Act, 2007 (previously Andhra Pradesh) by way of which, the government of Telangana resumed 800 acres of land alienated in favour of IMG Academies Bharata Private Limited.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti passed the order, and while doing so upheld the right of the State to pass a legislation that may affect only a single entity. The bench relied upon the precedent State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Kailash Chand Mahajan to hold:
“Thus, from aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that there could be legislation relating to a single individual on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others. It is equally well settled proposition that the burden was on the person to assail the validity of the legislation that there were also other persons similarly situate and he alone was discriminated against.”
Telangana High Court Issues Slew Of Directions For Conversation And Regulation Of Water
P.R. Subas Chandran, vs. The Commissioner AND Special Officer,
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 50
The Telangana High Court today issued a slew of directions for the conversation and regulation of water in the State.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti was seized of a writ petition that was taken up following a letter addressed to the Court in 2005 by a journalist, highlighting the issue of non-availability of water in the State.
Considering the writ had been pending since 2005, it was represented that the matter had become infructuous. Not paying heed to this submission, the bench noted that the issue of water conversation cannot become infructuous.
Association for Protection of Civil Rights APCR vs. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 51
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the release of movie “Razakar: A Silent Genocide of Hyderabad” noting that the petitioner had failed to challenge the Certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification.
“The petitioner in this PIL has not challenged the Certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification. Therefore, no effective relief in this writ petition can be granted to the petitioner,” said the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti.
M/s SMS Limited VS. Uranium Corporation of India Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 52
The Telangana High Court single bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe held that the question of whether the claims of a party are barred by limitation is a matter that necessitates adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal. Considering the provisions outlined in Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the legislative intent to curtail judicial interference at the pre-reference stage, the bench held that the issue of limitation falls within the purview of the Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication.
Syed Samiuddin and 3 others VS. P. Venu Gopal and 25 others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 53
The Telangana High Court has held that change in counsel is not a ground for explaining the delay in filing a petition in the absence of cogent evidence supporting the claim.
The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman in a batch of revision petitions filed by the plaintiff following the dismissal of pleas filed by him to receive certified copies of sale deeds, implead, reopen, and recall PW1 for further examination. The Bench said:
“The petitioner herein failed to give any explanation, much less plausible explanation with regard to the delay and the reasons except change of counsel which is not a proper ground. The petitioner herein having filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession has to prove his claim by producing cogent evidence. Though written statements were filed in the year 2012, the petitioner herein had filed the present IAs in the year 2022, that too, after cross-examining DWs.1 and 2 at length. Burden lies on the petitioner-plaintiff to prove his claim. He cannot depend on the weaknesses of the defendants.”
Dubbudu Ramakanth Reddy VS. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 54
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that when any offence involving an Indian citizen is committed outside of India, the trial should not be processed with, without the prior sanction of the Central Government. It thus quashed criminal proceedings initiated in India against a husband and in-laws based on incidents of dowry demand that were made outside of India.
"This Court is of the opinion that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is required for proceeding with against the petitioners herein for the offenses alleged in the complaint, on the basis of which the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been registered. As this Court is not satisfied that the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the C.C., as having been committed in India."
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sridhar Subasri, A2
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
The Telangana High Court has held that the Chairman, Managing Director, and Executive Director of a Private Bank come under the definition of 'public servant' as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and allowed a revision setting aside the discharge petition awarded to the accused by the Court below.
The order was passed by Justice E.V. Venugopal in a plea filed by the CBI against the order passed by the Special Judge for CBI, by way of which, the respondents/accused were exonerated of the offense punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that they were not public servants as per the Act.
The State of Telangana vs. Kuram Venkatesh Yerra Venkatesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
The Telangana High Court has held that Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention (UAPA) Act is only penal in nature, and needs to be proved by the prosecution. In doing so, the Court granted bail to 9 trained cadre/members of the Popular Front of India (PFI).
“Section - 18A deals with 'punishment for organizing of terrorist camps', Section - 18B deals with punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act' which says that whoever recruits or causes to be recruited any person or persons for commission of a terrorist act etc. are liable for punishment. It is only a penal provision. Ultimately it has to be proved by NIA by producing evidence," it said.
Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanapudi VS. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 57
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that passport renewal cannot be rejected on the ground that there are pending criminal proceedings against the applicant.
While doing so, Justice Surepalli Nanda further clarified, that in case the applicant (for passport renewal) was directed to secure a No Objection Certificate (NOC) as per the Central Gazette Notification of 1993 from a Magistrate and the Magistrate issued the NOC without stipulating the duration of renewal, the same is to be done as per the Passport Act and Rules but in no circumstance below 10 years.
"Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and the other High Courts in the various Judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, on petitioner's application dated 25.01.2024, for issuance of passport... for a period of ten years, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980, without reference to the Criminal Proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.472 of 2017.. and also the Gazette Notification issued by the Central Government vide GSR No.570(E) dated 25.08.1913"
Dugyala Praneeth Kumar alias Praneeth Rao vs. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 58
The Telangana High Court has recently upheld the remand of the DSP, a senior member of the Special Intelligence Branch, who is under investigation for charges of misusing his official position to monitor political rivals by tapping their phones, under the regime of the BRS government.
“This Court does not need any necessity to interfere with the interrogation timings or with regard to other aspects as contended by the learned senior counsel, as all precautions were taken by the trial court while granting police custody stating that the petitioner-accused shall not be subjected to any third-degree methods and that he should be given access to his counsel and that the entire interrogation shall be recorded under the audio and video recordings. As such, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel and any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court to interfere with the same,” Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani said.
Nossam Mohammed Yunus vs. State of TS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
The Telangana High Court has held that the right to remain silent is a fundamental right safeguarded under the constitution, and the investigating authority cannot file a second application for an extension of police custody owing to the fact that the accused was silent and did not give satisfactory answers. It said:
“It is relevant to note that with regard to the contention of the respondent/Investigating Agency that during interrogation the appellant could not give satisfactory reply towards the transactions and he was silent, it is apt to note that to remain silent during the investigation is a fundamental right guaranteed to the appellant/A.31 as per Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondent/Investigating Agency cannot contend that the appellant could not give satisfactory reply towards certain transactions and he was silent.”
M/s T.K. Engineering Consortium vs M/s Potin Pangin Highway Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 60
The Telangana High Court single bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe held that the precondition for invoking the arbitration clause is considered fulfilled when parties explore the possibility of settling the dispute amicably through arbitration. Correspondence and exchanges between the parties can be perused to assess whether there was an agreement over an amicable settlement.
Dandamudi Phani Krishna vs. Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 61
Invoking Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which bars married couples from seeking divorce before 1-year of marriage except in cases of 'exceptional hardship', the Telangana High Court recently allowed a couple, who lived together for only two months days, to file for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B.
A bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy passed the order considering the 40-year-old wife's wish to remarry at the earliest to avoid the potential health risks associated with pregnancy at her age.
Mohd. Asifuddin , Baba Jani, vs. State of TS
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 62
The Telangana High Court has held that omnibus allegations under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (Cruelty) do not warrant prosecution.
"The allegations against the petitioners in both the writ in my considered view, are omnibus. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar general and omnibus allegations do not warrant under Section 498-A of IPC. Further, the version put forth by the respondent in the form of an independent witness is also no more a new version," the Court held.
Naragirinadhuni Ranga Bhattacharyulu vs. State of TS
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 63
The Telangana High Court has held that salaries of Archakas to a temple cannot be stopped on the ground that temple land which had been transferred to their fathers during their tenure as Archakas, was now mutated, and being enjoyed by them. The Court said:
“It cannot be said that the Archakas are not entitled to the salaries for the services rendered by them. The usufruct of the land which is mutated in the names of the fathers of the petitioners is being enjoyed by their fathers and the Archakas, who are majors and are married, are a separate family and are therefore separate from their parents. The mutation of the land in the names of the fathers of the petitioners is only done as they are Hereditary Archakas and have rendered Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam (a scheme introduced by the Government to reimburse Archakas that worked without pay) to the 4th respondent temple during their tenure as Archakas.”
Modupalli Narappa, vs. The Government of A.P. Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 64
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of section 5(1)b and section 7 of the the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2007 as well as Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the associated Rules, 2007.
The order was passed by the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti in a batch of Writ Petitions preferred by Nuziveedu Seeds Limited (a Company engaged in the business of research, development, production, marketing, and sale of seeds) wherein the provisions of the Seed Act and Rules were challenged as unconstitutional.
G. Vinod vs. Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board TREIRB
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 65
The Telangana High Court has directed the Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (TREIRB) to conduct written examination for art teachers in the Residential Educational Institutions Societies (REIs), in two languages, i.e, English and Telugu.
Justice Pulla Karthik passed the order in a writ petition challenging actions of the Recruitment Board in conducting the exam only in English, despite the notification indicating that the exam would be conducted in two languages.
Central Board of Excise AND Customs vs. M/s GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited,
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 66
The Telangana High Court holds 'Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009' by way of which cost of living expenses were recoverable from the Customs Cargo Service Provider as ultra vires of the Customs Act, 1962.
“In the absence of any special authorization to levy cost recovery charges, appellants have no authority to impose cost recovery charges by means of a Regulation. The inevitable conclusion is that the 2009 Regulations are ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962.”
Smt. Kotha Arthica vs. State of TS
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 67
Recently, the Telangana High Court in a stern order criticized the decorum of a counsel who represented before the Court in a high-pitched and intimidating manner.
Justice T. Vinod Kumar took serious note of the conduct of the Counsel and noted that off-late, this had become a trend, where lawyers appearing before a Bench try to intimidate the Bench by raising their voices.
He noted that such conduct would not only amount to misconduct under the Advocates Act but, also jeopardize the relationship between the bar and the bench.
U.Venkata Ramana VS. State of Ap
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 68
In a recent judgment, the Telangana High Court overturned the convictions of six university staff members of Osmania University alleged to have misappropriated about Rs. 1.5 crores of university funds.
“Not a single bank witness is examined to show that at any point of time, self-cheques or the cheques of others were encashed in the bank by any of these appellants. The prosecution ought to have produced witnesses from the Bank to prove these appellants abetting A1 in committing alleged misappropriation of the funds entrusted to A1 would not arise…The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused leading to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused,” observed Justice K. Surender.
Telangana High Court Recognizes Co-Owner's Right Of Pre-Emption In Property Partition Disputes
Mohd. Mujthaba Ali VS. Mohd. Murtuza Ali
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
The Telangana High Court recently underscored the importance of considering a co-owner's right of preemption before ordering a public auction in property partition disputes. It held:
“If we look into the provisions of Sub-Section 1 and SubSection 2 of Section 3 of the Partition Act, it would reflect that there is a mandatory term which has been used by the lawmakers when they have held that the Court shall order for an appropriate valuation of the shares and may offer to sell the said Suit property at the price so ascertained. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the lawmakers were certain when they have enacted the said provisions that in the event of a claim of right to preemption, the interest of the said person who seeks right for preemption is protected as far as possible.”
Shameen Sultana Khan vs Faizunnisaa Begum
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 70
The Telangana High Court single bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe held that under Section 16(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the arbitral tribunals have the power to rule on its own jurisdiction including deciding the non-arbitrability of a dispute. Further, the court held that disputes related to insolvency and winding-up of a partnership concerning partners' rights and obligations are arbitrable.
Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. vs Union of India
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 71
The Telangana High Court division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dismissed a writ petition filed by PepsiCo to claim an exemption under certain packaging requirements mandated by Rule 6(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.
The concern was related to the amendment brought in Rule 6(1)(a), which specified requirements regarding the name and address declaration on packages, especially for imported packages and those of companies acting as packers. The High Court noted that there was no statutory basis to justify the Central Government's authority to exempt manufacturers from complying with Rule 6(1)(a).
Bonalollu Raju vs. State TS
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 72
The Telangana High Court has directed the Police authorities in Nirmal district to permit 'Lord Sri Veera Hanuman Yatra' procession today, on the eve of Hanuman Jayanti. However, it has restrained the procession holders from playing music within 150 meters of the nearby mosques.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy passed the interim direction to the Sub-divisional Police Officer and SHO concerned, in a writ petition filed by Ranjer Gangaprasad against refusal of permission citing 'communal sensitivity' of the area.
Telangana High Court Dismisses Wakf Board's Plea Claiming 5-Star Hotel Property
Viceroy Hotels Limited, VS Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board,
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 73
The Telangana High Court has delivered a significant judgment favoring Viceroy Hotels Limited in their protracted property dispute with the Telangana Wakf Board (the Board). The Court held that the principle of res judicata applies with full force to Wakf property disputes, preventing the Board from re-litigating a settled issue.
The dispute centered around a valuable property of almost 5 acres in the center of Hyderabad overlooking the Hussain Sagar Lake. The Waqf Board claimed the property to be of the Board, whereas Viceroy Hotels claimed that in 1958, after conducting an inquiry under section 27 of the Waqf Act 1954, the Board determined that the property was not a Wakf (religious endowment). Thus, the Viceroy Hotels came to acquire and develop the land, into the 'Marriott Hotel'.
M/S. KESORAM CEMENT, KMNR DIST. VS. PRL. SECY., ENVIRONMENT AND 2 ORS.
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
A recent judgment handed down by the Telangana High Court addressed a legal battle between Cement Companies of the State and the State government over increased fees for transporting forest minerals.
The dispute centered around an amendment to Rule 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Produces Rules, 1970. This amendment significantly increased the permit fee for major minerals, minor minerals, and granite from Rs.500 per 100 permits to Rs.10 per tonne, almost tripling the price.
Pbsamp Projects Pvt Ltd vs HLV Limited
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 75
The Telangana High Court division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti set aside an order passed by the executing court noting that it was arrived in a cryptic and cavalier manner without providing explanation or reasoning. It held that since the dispute between the parties was about the computation of the amount due and payable under the arbitral award, the executing court should have passed a well-reasoned and speaking order.
M. Rama Murthy & ors vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad & Ors.
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 76
The Telangana High Court has ruled that having differently abled dependents does not justify occupying a property after the expiry or cancellation of a lease.
“...the respondents instead of vacating the premises, have been addressing representations to the Executive Officer of the temple and Government to renew the lease on sympathetic grounds that the respondent is having children, who are physically and visually challenged. Merely because the children of the respondents are physically challenged and visually challenged, the respondents cannot be permitted to stay even after issuance of termination notice. A tenant, who continued even after termination of lease or tenancy, is declared as tenant by sufferance,” said Justice M. Priyadarsini.
Prateek Patny vs Smt. Tara Devi Patny and 23 Others
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that the appointment of 'Receiver' under Order XL Rule 1 is not a matter of right, but a discretionary relief that may be ordered by the Court, where the Court deems it to be 'just and convenient.'
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the appellant (plaintiff in the original suit) challenging the order of the trial court, declining to appoint a receiver, in the suit for partition.
Gugilla Aruna vs Adluri Ramesh Babu
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 78
The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty held that the unregistered Award can be admissible in evidence only for the collateral purpose to the extent of establishing the severance of title, nature of possession of various shares, i.e., in other words, to establish the character, nature, identity, and location in respect of the subject matter, but not for proving the factum of partition of the suit properties.
M/s. Bharat petroleum corporation limited vs. Cheedella annapurnamma
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
The Telangana High Court recently upheld the principle that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy parties' rights. The court condoned a delay of 992 days in bringing legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff on record in an appeal and setting aside the abatement caused by the delay.
The order was passed by a division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapak in an interlocutory application filed to bring the legal heirs of a deceased respondent on record and set aside the abatement caused due to non-impleading of the applicants at an earlier stage. The court said:
“The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; the Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. In essence, a suit or appeal should not be foreclosed for unintended lapses as there can be no presumption on the lack of bona fides in approaching the Court with an application for condonation of delay. The Court should bear in mind that refusal to condone delay, which is not wanton or deliberate, would result in foreclosing the case of a plaintiff or a defendant in arguing the matter on merits. Any lapse on the part of a litigant should be construed within a broader framework of the facts and the law so that the litigant is not ousted from the Courts.”
Pathireddy Rajeshwar Reddy vs Vittal Dande and ors.
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 80
The Telangana High Court has declared the Telangana Legislative Council elections from Adilabad Local Authorities' Constituency for the year as void and directed the conduct of fresh elections.
The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman in an election petition filed by Pathireddy Rajeshwar Reddy a member of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) now, Bharath Rashtra Samithi (BRS). The election petitioner claimed that the application for withdrawal of name from the nominated list of contesting candidates from Adilabad filed on his behalf by his proposer was done by forging his signature and falsely claiming to be authorized.
Mr. Chintala Kumar Yadav VS. State of TS
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 81
The Telangana High Court has yet again drawn negative inference against a lawyer for addressing in a 'high pitched' voice that seemed to be aimed at deterring the Court.
Justice T. Vinod Kumar has previously warned advocates against behaving in a manner that obstructs administration of justice and strains relations between the Bar and the Bench.
Referring to his previous judgement, Justice Vinod noted that despite being cautioned by the Court, it is disconcerting to note that such practice was repeated again.
“While noting so, this Court had cautioned that such practices would sow discord and ruin the harmony with the bench. However, it is disconcerting to note that such conduct is being repeated once again, that too by a Counsel who was conferred with a Senior Designation only recently.”
Mir Sadath Ali vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Ors.
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 82
The Telangana High Court recently delivered a landmark judgment in a long-standing land dispute, affirming the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to issue Occupancy Right Certificates (ORCs) even in cases involving 'service inams.'
The order was passed by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti in a batch of Writ Appeals challenging the order passed by a Single Judge upholding that an RDO has the jurisdiction to issue an ORC for 'Service Inams'
Conceding with the view taken by the single judge, the Division Bench held:
“Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the proviso to Section 4(1) of Inams Act, 1955 was inserted by 1994 Amendment Act and though the Statement of Objects and Reasons expressed the intention of the legislature to exempt the village service Inams and Inams held by religious and charitable institutions from abolition, in the face of this specific proviso introduced by way of the aforementioned proviso, it is not open to the appellant to plead exclusion of the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to consider grant of ORC even in respect of Inams held by the institution.”
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.424 OF 2013
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 83
The Telangana High Court has held that the child of a founding member of a Temple is not automatically entitled to be declared as a member of the founding family, merely because he is the child of the Founder.
The order was passed by Justice M.G. Priyadarsini in a Civil Miscellaneous appeal, which also upheld the action of the Tribunal in taking away the 'founding member' status of a respondent who had wrongly been declared as the founding member previously, in a claim initiated by a third party.
Smt Haneefa Bee vs. Mohd Nizam & Ors.
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 84
The Telangana High Court, recognizing the legal sanctity of a certified copy issued by the Court, held that a Court in its power cannot certify a Photostat copy of an unmarked document, thereby confirming its authenticity and credibility. It held:
"...when the legal sanctity and weight attached to the certified copies of the documents, be it marked or unmarked, issued by the Court is that of the original document, the Court in its power cannot certify a Photostat copy of an unmarked document, thereby confirming its authenticity and credibility."
Kadavath Srikanth vs Kadavath Ashwitha
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 85
The Telangana High Court has held that when recognized Tribes have admitted following Hindu traditions and Customs, and jointly file a petition under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, the Court cannot relegate them to customary Courts citing the bar created by section 2(2) of the Act.
Section 2(2) of the HMA says that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to Schedule Tribes. Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty relying on Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena and Chittapuli v. Union Government, held:
“Section 2(2) of the Act are meant to protect customary practices of recognized Tribes. However, if the parties are following Hindu traditions, customs and that they are substantially Hinduised, they cannot be relegated to customary Courts, that too, when they themselves admit that they are following Hindu rites, customs and traditions.”
Mohammed Nayeem vs. Smt. Naveditha Manvikar
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 86
The Telangana High Court has held that initiating contempt proceedings without sufficient evidence constitutes an abuse of legal process and a waste of court resources.
Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty thus imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on Mohammed Nayeem who had initiated contempt proceedings against Naveditha Manvikar, emphasizing the need for willful and deliberate disobedience for such actions. The court reasoned that mere allegations, without substantial proof of violation of a court order, are insufficient to initiate contempt proceedings.
“Unless there is a deliberate and wilful violation of the Court orders, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated on mere allegation. As discussed above, absolutely, no material is placed before this Court to substantiate the allegation of violation of Court order by the petitioner. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, initiation of contempt proceedings by the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law, wastage of valuable time of Court and there is deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to intimidate the respondent. The attempt/misadventure of this nature of the petitioner has to be curtailed to prevent misuse of process of law and also to deter the action of this nature.”
Mrs. Anuradha Akella alias Akella Anuradha vs. State of TS
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 87
The Telangana High Court has held that alleged default by a company for a short period would not attract the offense punishable under Section 5 of Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.
Justice Dr. G. Radha Rani passed the order in a petition filed seeking anticipatory bail noting that the intention to cheat must be evident from the very beginning.
The Bench noted that the complainant had been investing money in the said company since 2012 and had been getting returns as promised till 2019. It was only after 2019 when the accused allegedly started to default on the payments.
Phani Raghavalu Meduri vs Lakshmi Meduri
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 88
In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court underscored the importance of including the alleged adulterer as a necessary party in divorce proceedings initiated on the grounds of adultery.
The court emphasized that the right of the alleged adulterer to be heard is crucial for a fair and just trial, and their absence can lead to an incomplete adjudication of the case. The Court said:
“It is to be noted that since the finding of adultery would adversely affect the interest of adulterer, opportunity should be given to him to defend himself and to disprove the claim of adultery, the said adulterer should be arrayed in the proceedings which would help the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the controversy.”
Nirmala Jyoth vs The Telangana State Public Service Commission, rep., by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad & Ors.
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 89
While addressing a petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission's (APPSC) selection process for Child Development Project Officers (CDPO), the Telangana High Court has reiterated that the reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in the General category.
Relying on Supreme Court's decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Shobana, the Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice N.Tukaramji observed,
“If we examine the methodology adopted by APPSC and steps admittedly taken by them in the impugned selection, it will be clear like cloudless sky that they have taken steps contrary to the law laid down in K. Shobana case (cited 3.d supra). Instead of preparing a general merit list, they filled up the backlog vacancies first. They should have filled up the regular vacancies, which they have not done. Apart from this, they treated one of the SC candidate as reserved candidate despite the fact that she secured more marks than the marks obtained by last OC candidate merely because she got benefit of age relaxation.”
Dhanee Singh @ Dhanush Singh vs. State of TS.
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 90
In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court held that simply employing a child for lower wages and extended hours does not automatically constitute an offence under the "child kept in bondage" Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The order was passed by Justice K. Sujana in a Criminal Petition filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying quashment of the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner/accused.
“Moreover, the essential ingredient to attract the offence under Section 79 of the Act is that the minor child must be kept in bondage for purpose of employment or the child's earnings should be withheld or such earnings shall be used by employer for his own purpose, where as the said allegations are not there in the complaint or in the charge sheet," the bench held.
Smt. Elizabeth vs. State of TS
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 91
The Telangana High Court, in a recent judgment, established that when an individual facing disciplinary proceedings is granted the opportunity to view all relevant material but fails to cooperate, they cannot later claim that they were not provided with the evidence underpinning the charges.
“The record would also indicate that the petitioner was permitted to verify the entire material, report, but the petitioner did not cooperate with the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, it only leads to conclusion that petitioner intentionally tried to protract the enquiry proceedings. Furthermore, petitioner failed to demonstrate as to how prejudice was caused to her because of non-supply of alleged documents sought by her.”
LAKAVATH ROJA vs. The Telangana Public Service Commission & Ors.
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 92
The Telangana High Court has held that the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) exceeded its authority by relaxing the condition of educational qualification for recruitment of Assistant Engineers in the Roads and Buildings Department, after the initial declaration.
The court emphasized that the revision did not fall under the purview of Rule 20(b) of TSPSC Rules, which only permits correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. It thus held that TSPSC's action violated the principles of fairness and transparency in public appointments.
“Therefore, the respondent No.1 was not within its power under Rule 20(b) of TSPSC rules to revise the selection list. What is permitted under Rule 20(b) of TSPSC Rules is only “right to correct any clerical, typographical, arithmetical or other mistakes in the merit list, selected list etc.” The relaxation of the condition of educational qualification or technical condition is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake which can be corrected by TSPSC. The TSPSC is only a recruitment agency and it is for the employer, who has to specify the qualifications for a post and the qualifications mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.58, cannot be relaxed by TSPSC under Rule 20(b) of TSPSC Rules.”
Colourable Devices To Evade Tax Can't Be Tax Planning, Rules Telangana High Court
Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla Versus Principal Commissioner of Incometax Central
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 93
The Telangana High Court has held that tax planning may be legitimate, provided it is within the framework of the law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning, and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honorable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges.
The bench of Justice P.Sam Koshy and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, in which it was held that the proper way to construe a taxing statute while considering a device to avoid tax is not to ask whether the provisions should be construed literally or liberally, nor whether the transaction is not unreal and not prohibited by the statute, but whether the transaction is a device to avoid tax, and whether the transaction is such that the judicial process may accord its approval to it.
Chatari Dashrath vs. State of TS
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 94
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to the Station House Officer of the Osmania University area for registering a crime against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy in an issue surrounding an alleged fabricated Tweet, regarding the closure of the University hostel.
The Bench of Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy heard and disposed of the matter at the stage of admission, today.
Fareedunnisa Huma vs. UoI
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
The Telangana High Court has granted an interim stay on the Circular issued by the Centre banning the rearing of 'Ferocious & Dangerous' Dog Breeds.
The Circular was issued by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying in March, banning the import, breeding, and selling of 25 dog breeds that were recognized as 'dangerous', as pet dogs. The circular further mandated the instant sterilization of any 'dangerous dog' that was already being kept as a pet.
The Circular was passed following an order passed by the Delhi High Court in The Legal Attorneys & Barristers Law Firm vs UOI & Ors, wherein the Court had directed the Ministry to ban certain dog breeds owing to the recent spike in human deaths occurring due to dog bites.
Cherukuri Ramakrishna vs Sandhya Hotels Private Limited
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 96
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka has held that the determination of the title of the shares is within the domain of the Civil Court and not the NCLT/NCLAT. The bench held that Section 430 of the Companies Act comes into play only after the title to the shares is decided.
Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters that fall under the purview of the National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. It ensures that civil courts do not interfere with issues that these specialized tribunals are empowered to handle.
Smt. N. Pravallika vs M. Abhishek Goud
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 97
The Telangana High Court recently upheld an order by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (appellate court) in a domestic violence case, highlighting the mandatory requirement for both parties to disclose their assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.
“The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal observed that though the assets and liabilities statement of respondent No.1 was on record by the date of passing the order, in spite of the same, it was not considered by the trial court making the order erroneous, since the statement would help the Court in deciding the actual amount of relief that was entitled and claimed,” the Bench observed.
The order was passed by Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani in a Criminal Revision petition. The Bench has heavily relied on the ratio laid down in the Supreme Court case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another.
Malabai Khandarkar vs. Y. Jaihind Reddy and others
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 98
The Telangana High Court, in a landmark ruling, has affirmed the right of non-parties to file appeals under Sections 96-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) if they are negatively impacted by a trial court's decision.
This judgment was delivered by the division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, in a plea by individuals who were not formal parties to the lawsuit but were substantially affected by its outcome.
Persons like the appellants, who were not made parties to the Suit, have a right to seek leave to appeal from the judgment if such persons can show, even prima facie, that they are adversely affected by the judgment or would be bound by it by reason of the facts shown to the Appellate Court. It would indeed be a travesty of justice if persons who are not made parties to a Suit for ulterior motives or even through inadvertence, are deprived of the right to assail the judgment before the Appellate Court solely on the ground that they were not parties to the Suit. There may be several reasons why a plaintiff would choose not to bring a person/entity on board as a defendant including that of a collusive decree. The Court, in such cases, cannot sit powerless and shut the aggrieved persons out from ventilating their grievance against the order/judgment.”
Preventive Detention Routinely Invoked In Telangana Despite SC Directions, Regrettable: High Court
Chandrakanth Siddharth Kamble vs. State of TS.
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 99
The Telangana High Court has set aside the detention and subsequent proclamation order against a garment merchant from Maharashtra observing that bail was already granted to the accused in the two cases based on which, the detention order was passed, and the State is free to seek cancellation of bail if conditions are violated.
While passing the order, the Division bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha noted that the purpose of issuing a detention order is to prevent the reoccurrence of illegal activities.
THE STATE OF A.P. vs SYED JAHANGIR AND 8 OTHERS
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 100
The Telangana High Court has overturned the acquittal and sentenced the accused to life in prison for murder in 'the family murder case'. The Court held that the deposition of a 'pardanashin' lady, could not be discredited merely on the ground of her being a pardanashin.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Juvvadi Sridevi in a Criminal Appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of 9 accused alleged to have planned and executed the murder of an entire family of 5 members.
Kothapally Mahesh A6 vs. State of Telangana
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 101
The Telangana High Court has upheld the right of an individual to raise slogans in a public space, without prior sanction, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive language. The Court said:
“The contention of petitioners is that they never participated in the protest and also relied on the judgment of Anita Thakur's case, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this country and, thus, this provision ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive language. In the present case, there are no allegations that these petitioners used offensive language and there is no evidence to show that due to unlawful assembly, nuisance is caused to the public and that they have obstructed free flow of traffic or obstructed the public or the authorities from discharging their duties. Hence, continuation of proceedings against these petitioners is not tenable and the same is liable to be quashed.”
The order was passed by Justice K. Sujana in a Criminal Petition filed by the members of Telangana Vidyarthi Vedika (TVV) praying to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offences alleged under Sections 143, 341, 290, 186 r/w. Section 149 of IPC for allegedly conducting a protest program at the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar statue for the release of Prof. G. N. Sai Baba and Varavara Rao without prior permission.
X v. X
2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 102
The Telangana High Court has held that even though there is no possibility of two individuals living together and there is an 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage', divorce cannot be granted under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing the said reason. The Court stated:
“…the appellant contended that the appellant and the respondent are staying separately since last 17 years and their marriage is it retrievably breakdown, there is no possibility of living together. But the said ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground to seek divorce. Neither, the Family Court nor this Court can grant divorce on the said ground. The said aspect can be considered while coming to a conclusion with regard to alleged cruelty.”
The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha in a Family Court Appeal filed by an aggrieved husband, whose petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was dismissed by the trial Court.
Sri Sai Krishna Constructions vs Harvins Constructions Plimited
2024 LiveLaw (TS)103
The Telangana High Court bench of ChiefJustice Alok Aradhe has dismissed an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator noting that the party failed to establish prima facie evidence of the existence of valid arbitration agreement.
The bench held that the court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) must conclusively determine the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement as the same goes to the root of the matter.
Court Must Assign Reasons When Releasing Amount Under Section 19 of MSME Act: Telangana High Court
National Small Industries Corporation vs Brahma Teja Paper Products
2024 LiveLaw (TS)104
The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti has held that the court while dealing with a prayer under Section 19 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 to release the amount has to assign reasons for releasing such percentage of the amount.
Section 19 of the MSME Act provides that the court may permit the release of a portion of the deposited amount to the supplier pending the decision on the application to set aside the decree, award, or order, contingent upon the circumstances and conditions it deems fit to impose.
Smt. Syeda Sana Sumera And Ors Vs Kamran Mirza And Ors
2024 LiveLaw (TS)105
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that the scope of power of the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extremely limited. It held that the court cannot go into disputed questions of facts which are to be decided by the arbitrator.
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the appointment of arbitrators by the courts. It states the procedure for appointing arbitrators when parties fail to agree on the appointment or when certain circumstances require court intervention.
M. Shankar and others. Vs.State of Telangana
2024 Livelaw (TS) 106
The Telangana High Court has held that assigned landholders are entitled to the same rate of compensation as private landowners for the acquisition of land for the National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ) in Zaheerabad. The Court said,
"Petitioners (assigned land holders) have right to get the ex-gratia on par with the private patta holders of the same villages...The G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA) Department dated 30.07.2015 was issued for procurement of the land from the willing land owners and others by the procuring agency for public purpose. It clearly mentioned that the willing land owners and others, the petitioners were assignment patta holders and they would come within the meaning of others. Moreover, the definition of 'land owner' under Section 3(r)(iii) of the Act,2013 includes any person who is entitled to be granted patta rights on the land under any law of the State including assigned lands.”
D. Narsimha ,iNarsimlu vs, Smt D Anita Vaishnavi
2024 Livelaw (TS) 107
While allowing a husband's appeal seeking a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Telangana High Court reiterated that marriage cannot be forced on individuals, and the Court must not act as a hangman or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband in a loveless marriage.
“The obliteration of marital ties is entirely for the persons in the marriage and upon them to assess and resolve in the best way they think fit. The Court has a limited role in the whole affair and should not act as an executioner (in the sense of a hangman) or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband, particularly where the meeting of minds between them has irrevocably ended. It is certainly not the Court's work to ferret out faultlines in the evidence in negation of cruelty in an altruistic zeal for preserving the marriage. This kind of exercise is unwarranted and pointless,” said a Division of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini.
Vedula Venkataramana v. State of Telangana
2024 Livelaw (TS) 108
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a senior advocate seeking to quash a FIR lodged against him for allegedly accepting Rs. 7 crores from a litigant with the alleged intent of bribing High Court judges to secure a favorable verdict.
“The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are grave. The allegation that money was obtained to bribe the judges of this Court casts a serious doubt on the independence of judiciary and implies that justice is up for sale. Such serious allegations need to be investigated,” said Justice K. Lakshman.
Telangana High Court Orders Interim Stay On Detention Of Allegedly 'Ferocious' German Shepherd Dog
Dr. Lokdeep Sharma vs. State of Telangana
2024 Livelaw (TS) 109
The Telangana High Court has ordered an interim stay on the directions issued to the Deputy Director, Veterinary Section by an SHO, to take custody of a 2-year-old German Shepherd 'Zorro' on account of being ferocious.
“There shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the letter dated 19.06.2024 of respondent No.3 the Sub Inspector of Police, Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, subject to condition that the petitioner's pet dog 'Zorro' shall be accompanied by the petitioner or her family members at all times,” the Court said.
Valmar Projects Llp vs Isthara Parks Private Limited
2024 LiveLaw (TS) 110
The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe has held that the mere filing of such petition under Section 9 of IBC before NCLT does not bar initiation of proceeding under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that there is no statutory provision which bars a party from initiating the proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Section 9 of the IBC deals with the application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by an operational creditor.
Case tile: Shaik Mohammed Sadiq vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs & batch
Case no: WP 28523 of 2023 & other
The Telangana High Court recently upheld the action of Customs officials seizing gold bars worth over Rs 2.3 crore from petitioners who had arrived in India at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport in Hyderabad, from Bangkok.
The Court's reasoning hinged on the Customs Act, which places burden of proof on the person from whose possession the dutiable or prohibited goods, as the case may be, are seized (Section 123).