Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 8 To 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 11

Nominal Index

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Jilla Sadhana Sammiti v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 8

Guvvala Ramakrishna Reddy v. Guvvala Satyarnarayan Reddy 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 9

M/s Bharat Weighing Scales vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 10

Janepalli Srinivasa Rao Alias J.Srinivasa Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 11

Public Prosecutor Entitled To Take Independent Decision On Whether Prosecution Should Be Withdrawn Or Not: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Jilla Sadhana Sammiti v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024 LiveLaw (AP) 8

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has passed orders iterating that although a public prosecutor is entitled to move an application under Section 321 of CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution, an independent decision must be made as to whether the prosecution of an accused is to be withdrawn or not.

“Be that as it may, as an interim measure, we direct that while the Public Prosecutor is vested with the power to move an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., yet, notwithstanding the fact that the G.O. has been issued, the principles laid down by the Apex Court and reproduced hereinabove would be followed and the Public Prosecutor would be entitled to take an independent decision as to whether the prosecution has to be withdrawn or not," it held.

Can't Be Permitted To Contradict Initial Position To Create 'Substantial Question Of Law': Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Second Appeal

Guvvala Ramakrishna Reddy v. Guvvala Satyarnarayan Reddy

2024 LiveLaw (AP) 9

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a second appeal filed holding that the parties cannot blow 'hot and cold' and cannot be permitted to 'approbate or reprobate' at the same time.

The order was passed by Justice B.V.L.N Chakravarthi in a second appeal filed by the defendants in a suit for partition by taking a contradictory stand to their initial stand and trying to create 'substantial questions of law' as mandated under section 100 of the CPC.

“To be a substantial question of law, there must be a foundation for it laid in the pleadings, and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of the fact, arrived at by the Courts of facts, and it must be necessary to decide that substantial question of law for a just and proper decision of the case."

Controller Of Legal Metrology Can Restrict Licenses To One City; Andhra Pradesh High Court

 M/s Bharat Weighing Scales vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.

2024 LiveLaw (AP) 10

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh bench comprising Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda interpreted Section 23(2) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Section 11(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. The High Court held that a conjoint reading of both provisions empowered the Controller of the Legal Metrology Department to issue the license to manufacturers, dealers and repairers with geographical limits and other conditions. Further, after the issuance, the license holders are bound by such conditions and the same does not violate the fundamental right to profession, enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Accused Who Allegedly 'Stabbed' CM YS Jagan Mohan Reddy At Vizag Airport In 2018

Janepalli Srinivasa Rao Alias J.Srinivasa Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024 LiveLaw (AP) 11

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to J. Srinivasa Rao, accused of allegedly stabbing Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy in 2018 in the VIP lounge of Vishakapatnam Airport. The Court held that merely using a weapon, and committing an act of violence would not inadvertently amount to an offense under section 3A (offense at airport) of the Suppression of Unlawful Act against Safety of Civil Aviations Act, 1982, unless such act was likely to cause grievous injury or death. It held:

"From the above available facts, for the purpose of considering the bail application, we are satisfied that the violence allegedly committed by the accused neither caused grievous hurt or death nor is likely to cause grievous hurt or death. As rightly argued by the petitioner, mere using the device, substance or weapon and committing the act of violence is not the be all and end all of the offence U/s 3A unless such violence is likely to cause grievous hurt or death of any person which is not the case in the present instance."

Nominal Index 

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 24 To 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 29)

Sardar Jasbeer Singh v. State of Telangana 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 24

East Hyderabad Expressway Limited vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and another. 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 25

Pollodi Jayamma v. State of Telangana 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 26

R.Mallesh v. State of Telangana 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 27

Prahitha Construction Private Limited vs Union of India and 3 others 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 28

Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Telangana 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 29

Lawyers Filing PILs Need To Show Antecedents, Merely Being A Lawyer Not Enough: Telangana High Court

Sardar Jasbeer Singh v. State of Telangana

2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 24

The Telangana High Court on Thursday reiterated 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 Telangana High Court

Limitation Period For Arbitration Decided By Arbitral Tribunals, Not By Courts: Telangana High Court Allows Section 11(6)(a) Application

East Hyderabad Expressway Limited vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and another.

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.

[Telangana Municipalities Act] No Inconsistencies Between 1965 & 2019 Acts: High Court Upholds No-Confidence Motion Against Municipality Chairpersons/Vice-Chairpersons

Pollodi Jayamma v. State of Telangana

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.

High Court Imposes Exemplary Cost On Plea Against Telangana's Power Distribution Company For Suppression Of Material Facts

R.Mallesh v. State of Telangana

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.

“In the instant case, since petitioner has not disclosed filing of suit and its withdrawal, this Court directed to maintain status quo, hence, they have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. They have not only approached this Court with unclean hands but also abused the process of law which disentitles them to seek extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief. This Court therefore, is of the view that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

GST Payable On Transfer Of Land Development Rights Under Joint Development Agreement: Telangana High Court

Prahitha Construction Private Limited vs Union of India and 3 others

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.

No Capacity To Do Official Favor After Chargesheet Has Been Filed: Telangana HC Quashes Case Against Sub-Inspector For Allegedly Demanding Bribe

Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Telangana

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."