Nominal index:

 M/s Shree Swaminarayan Travels vs M/s Oil Natural Gas Corporation Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AP)33

Shaik Mahaboob John vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2024 LiveLaw (AP)34

M.Sreenivasulu Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (AP)35

Dara Prakash Rao Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 36

The District Co-Operative Marketing Society(DCMS) Vs Varam Soujanya 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 37

M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Cheedella Annapurnamma 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 79

Pathireddy Rajeshwar Reddy vs Vittal Dande and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 80

Mr. Chintala Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 81

Report:

[Arbitration Act] Courts Can Only Appoint Arbitrator U/s. 11(6) If Parties Fail To Refer Dispute To Arbitrator Even After Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court

M/s Shree Swaminarayan Travels vs M/s Oil Natural Gas Corporation Limited

2024 LiveLaw (AP)33

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur held that to maintain an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Applicant is required to show that the Respondents failed to act as required under the arbitration clause and failed to refer the disputes to the Arbitrator even after a notice invoking the arbitration clause was served on the Respondents.

Selection Process Cannot Be Cancelled In Absence Of Valid, Bonafide Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Shaik Mahaboob John vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2024 LiveLaw (AP)34

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while it may be true that the process of selection can be abandoned, yet the same can be done only for valid reasons.

In a recent case, the court set aside the cancellation of a selection process for various government posts, eight years after its initiation, due to the absence of valid reasons. The court emphasized that such decisions cannot be arbitrary and must be based on sound reasoning and evidence.

“Law with regard to the rights of candidates who participate in a selection process and may even find their names in the selection list based upon such a selection process is no longer res integra. It is settled that mere participation in the selection process does not give any indefeasible right to a candidate to get appointed and while the authorities have the right to abandon the selection process, yet the same can be done by giving proper reasons and justification and not arbitrarily.”

Plea Alleging Cruelty During Marriage Not Maintainable After Divorce: Andhra Pradesh High Court

M.Sreenivasulu Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024 LiveLaw (AP)35

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when a marriage has already been dissolved, a petition under 498A and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not maintainable.

The order was passed in a criminal revision petition filed by the accused and his parents challenging the dismissal order passed against their discharge petitions in a criminal case filed in section 498A of the IPC and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao relying on P. Siva Kumar & ors. V. State Rep., by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors, held:

"In light of the observations outlined in the aforementioned decision, this Court perceives that there is no utility in prolonging the proceedings against the accused individuals, especially in light of the Family Court's order nullifying the marriage between the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent."

Mosque Managing Committee Can Grant Lease Of Waqf Property For Less Than One Year: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Dara Prakash Rao & Ors Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

2024 LiveLaw (AP) 36

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Mosque Managing Committee can be considered a 'Mutavalli' and is entitled to grant lease of any Waqf Property for a period of less than one year.

“Rule 4 of the Wakf Lease Rules, stipulate that even a Muthavalli is entitled to grant leases of less than one year. Section 3(i) of the Wakf Act defines Muthavalli to include any Person, Committee, or Corporation for the time being Managing or administrating any Wakf property. As the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent has been appointed by the Wakf Board for such purpose, the said Managing Committee would be deemed to be the Muthavalli of the 4th respondent and would be entitled to grant leases below one year.”

Admission Of Encroachment Not Proof Of 'Possession' For Grant Of Interim Injunction: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The District Co-Operative Marketing Society(DCMS) Vs Varam Soujanya 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 37

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that admission regarding encroachment cannot be construed to mean admitting possession. And that, for the grant of relief of interim injunction, a party must prove legally sustainable possession not just 'mere possession.'

The order was passed by Justice B.S. Bhanumathi in a Civil Revision petition filed by the District Co-operative Marketing Society, Kadapa against whom an order of interim injunction was passed, by an Appellant Court, restraining them from interfering in the suit scheduled property, upon which the plaintiffs claimed to have possession.

Section 5 Of Limitation Act Guards Against Abatement Under Order XXII CPC When Delay Is Neither Wanton Nor Deliberate: Telangana High Court

M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Cheedella Annapurnamma 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 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.”

Telangana High Court Voids Legislative Council Elections From Adilabad Local Authorities' Constituency, Directs Fresh Polls

Pathireddy Rajeshwar Reddy vs Vittal Dande and ors.

2024 LiveLaw (TS) 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.

“Free and fair election is the sacrosanct thread that weaves our Country's democratic structure. The procedure laid down under Act, 1951 and Rules, 1961 have to be followed scrupulously without any deviation. The Returning Officer cannot say go-by to the said procedure…As discussed above, due to lapses of respondent No.5 in accepting Ex.R2 – withdrawal form, the election petitioner was deprived from contesting in the subject election. It is not a fair election," it was stated.

Justice Can't Be Bogged Down, Process For Conferring Senior Designation Needs A Relook: Telangana HC As Senior Advocate Addresses It In 'High Pitch'

Mr. Chintala Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and Ors.

2024 LiveLaw (TS) 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.”