Andhra Pradesh High Court Annual Digest 2022 [Citations 1 - 137]

Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (AP )1- 137 ]

Shaik Gouse Peer v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 1

T. Mahaboob Basha Versus Dowlath Bee 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 2

Marri Gopi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 3

Smt. Peddisetti Anitha Sree @ Yenepalli Anitha Sree v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 4

Thammisetti Narasimha Rao Versus The State of AP 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 5

Amoda Iron Steel Limited v. Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 6

 K Ravi Prasad Reddy v. G Giridhar 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 7

Attal Plastics v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 8

Chalasani Padma Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 9

Guduridheeraj Kumar Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 10

 Balina Srimannarayana Versus S.R.R.Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 11

 M Rama Chandraiah Versus Valleupu China Ankaiah 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 12

Devu Poojitha Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 13

Murarisetty Sai Baba Versus Ommina China Eswaraiah 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 14

Vegulla Leela Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 15

Polu Venkata Lakshmamma & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 16

Smt. H. Malleswaramma v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 17

Bikka Parvathi v. State represented by the Public Prosecutor 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 18

Gangisetty Anuradha v. Bijala Subramanyam 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 19

Vaddu Lakshmidevamma @ Lakshmi Devi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 20

K V Krishnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 21

Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi and 2 others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 22

VINTI RAMAKRISHNA, W.G.DIST. & ORS v. P.P., HYD 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 23

 D. Vidya Sagar v. Union of India and 4 other 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 24

Mangalagiri Textile Mills v. State Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 25

 Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 26

Blineni Rajagopal Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 27

Karukola Vasudevarao v. Karri Suseelamma & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 28

Chaitanya Godavri Grameena Bank, Guntur v. K. Ravi Kumari 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 29

V.Manjula Versus v. Jagadish 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 30

Kommineni Venkateswara Rao v.  The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 31

 M. Mohanraj v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 32

Kathupalli Venkata Sowmya Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 33

Gudimetla Srinivasulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 34

Ali Cotton Mill v. Appellate Joint Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 35

 Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 36

Chennuboina Raj Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 75

Yelamanchili Satya Krishna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 76

NMS Goud v. Punam Malakondaiah & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 77

M. Shyama Sundar Naidu, Chittoor DT and Ors. v. State of AP 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 78

VR Commodities Private Limited versus Norvic Shipping Asia Pte. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 79

Judgements/Orders This Year 

Person In Possession & Enjoyment Of Property Can't Be Dispossessed By State Authority Except By Due Process Of Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Shaik Gouse Peer v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 1

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that when a person is in settled possession and enjoyment of a property, he cannot be dispossessed, except by following due process of law.

Justice M. Satya Narayana Murthy said that"when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law...Therefore, the respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioner from the property, except by due process of law."

Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Will Be Allowed Only If Any Of The Clauses Are Strictly Applicable To The Pleadings In Plaint: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: T. Mahaboob Basha Versus Dowlath Bee

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 2

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday stated that the plaint cannot be rejected under an application filed by defendant in Order VII Rule 11, CPC if none of the clauses set out under Order VII Rule 11 are applicable to the pleadings strictly mentioned in the plaint.

Continuation Of Rowdy Sheet Without Any Pending Criminal Case Is Illegal, Unconstitutional: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Marri Gopi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 3

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday ruled that the action of the police in continuing the rowdy sheet when the petitioner is acquitted in sole crime registered against him is unconstitutional.

Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy relied on his recent order in Tadiboyina Peraiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P. No. 24672 of 2020 wherein the Court held that:

"when in a sole crime that was registered against the petitioner, he was acquitted and no other crime was registered against him and when there is no material on record placed by the police to show that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the interest of the public and that no person is coming forward to complain against him, that the continuation of rowdy sheet in the said facts and circumstances of the case, is not sustainable under law."

Married Daughter Also Entitled To Compassionate Appointment On Death Due To COVID: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Smt. Peddisetti Anitha Sree @ Yenepalli Anitha Sree v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 4

Recently, Justice Ninala Jayasurya of Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter is also entitled to compassionate appointment. Her marital status will not be a bar to claim the welfare scheme based on the facts and circumstances.

This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, to quash the same and for consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner, in any suitable post, on compassionate grounds.

Under Section 482 CrPC Jurisdiction, Court Can't Examine If Subsequent Statement Was Improvement Of Sec 161 Statement: AP High Court

Case Title: Thammisetti Narasimha Rao Versus The State of AP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 5

The Andhra Pradesh Court recently ruled that in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C the Court cannot appreciate the evidence on record in exercise of its inherent powers.

The Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 was filed seeking to quash the charge sheet. The petitioner who was one of the accused was undergoing prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Justice Chekati Manavendranath Roy ruled that the ground raised by the petitioner is not a valid legal ground for quash of charge sheet under Section 482. The bench stated as below:

"Whether the subsequent statement given by her in her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement is an improvement made subsequently or not and whether the said evidence is true or not is the matter relating to appreciation of evidence by the trial Court in the final adjudication of the case. This Court in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot appreciate the evidence on record in exercise of its inherent powers."

Commercial Courts Have The Power To Permit New Timeline For Submission Of Written Statement In Transferred Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Amoda Iron Steel Limited v. Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 6

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the Commercial Courts dealing with transferred cases from civil courts have the power to prescribe a new timeline for submission of written statement. The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam for not extending the period of 120 days for filing the written statement.

Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari ruled as follows:

"1) where the suit or application has been transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15 (2) of the Act, 2015 from the civil court and the procedure for filing written statement had not been completed at the time of transfer, the commercial court shall have the power and jurisdiction to prescribe a new time period for filing written statement, irrespective of the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons on the concerned defendant.

2) In a suit or application transferred to the commercial court under Section 15(2) of the Act, 2015, the written statement shall be filed within the new time period prescribed by the Commercial Court in exercise of power under Section 15(4) of the Act, 2015, failing which, on expiry of new time line so prescribed, the defendant shall forfeit his right to file written statement and the court shall neither take the written statement on record nor shall extend the new prescribed time period as mandated by Order VIII rules 1 and 10 CPC."

Section 52 Transfer Of Property Act Does Not Bar Temporary Injunction Against Alienation Of Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: K Ravi Prasad Reddy v. G Giridhar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 7

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not operate as a bar to grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, of Civil Procedure Code.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice C. Praveen Kumar in common judgment observed that:

"Section 52 of T.P. Act although provides protection to the parties from transfers pendent lite, in as much as it makes such transfers subservient to the decree that may be passed in the suit, but it does not come in the way of passing an order of temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit property during the pendency of the suit on the applicant satisfying all the three ingredients of prima facie, balance of convenience and causing irreparable loss or injury in his favour."

Judicial Intervention Must Be Exercised Cautiously In Contractual Sphere, Specifically In Govt Contracts: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case title: Attal Plastics v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 8

In the Contractual sphere, (like that of a tender), judicial scrutiny must be cautiously exercised because the author of the contract is the best judge of its requirements and eligibility conditions and courts should only interfere in case that eligibility criteria or conditions are arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable or malafide, Andhra Pradesh High Court has held.

Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao while dismissing a petition seeking to declare a tender notification illegal citing arbitrary and unreasonable eligibility conditions, observed that judicial intervention in state instrumentalities must be limited, arising only when there are doubts about the procedure being arbitrary and against public interest.

Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Exercised If Order Of Quasi Judicial Authority Is Not Reasoned/ Non-Speaking: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Chalasani Padma Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 9

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that quasi judicial authorities are not exempted from giving cogent reasons for orders given by them and the Constitutional Court in the exercise of writ jurisidiction can interfere with the final orders if they suffers from manifest error.

Placing Hand On Woman's Body While She Is Sleeping Prima Facie An Offence U/S 354A IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Guduridheeraj Kumar Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 10

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a man placing hand on woman's body while she is sleeping prima facie constitutes an offence under Section 354A which prescribes punishment for sexual harassment. The acts punishable under Section 354 A are:

• physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
• a demand or request for sexual favours; or
• showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
• making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment

Where An Allegation Of Fraud Is Made, The Said Allegation Would Have To Be Proved Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Balina Srimannarayana Versus S.R.R.Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 11

The Andhra Pradesh Court vide order by Justice R. Raghunandan Rao recently ruled that where an allegation of fraud is made, the said allegation would have to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Petitioner had constructed a multi storied commercial complex in the suit schedule property under a development agreement with APSRTC. The petitioner provided a part of the complex for 10 years on sub-license to the respondent for hotel and hospitality services. The Respondent defaulted in payment of license fee. As a consequence, the Petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 2,05,11,560/- and for a direction to respondent to vacate the plaint schedule property.

Advocate Commissioner Cannot Be Appointed During Execution Proceedings To Reverse Finding Of Trial Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M Rama Chandraiah Versus Valleupu China Ankaiah

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 12

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the Executing Court cannot appoint Advocate Commissioner in execution proceedings after the trial court has already decided the question of possession of property.

Justice R. Raghunandan Rao observed,

"In the present case, the trial Court of competent jurisdiction has already decided the question of possession of the property in favour of the petitioner herein. This finding cannot be over turned by the Executing Court while passing orders in an Execution Petition. The Executing Court ought not to have directed the appointment of an advocate commissioner in such a circumstance."

Petitioner Was Ineligible To Write Entrance Test, Can't Take Advantage Of University's Improper Verification For Admission: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Devu Poojitha Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 13

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent writ petition observed that a candidate who is ineligible to appear in an entrance exam on the date of application, cannot take advantage of the University's improper verification of eligibility criteria and claim right to appear in the counselling round.

Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao observed,

"the petitioner cannot claim any legitimate right for grant of a seat for the main reason that the petitioner having full knowledge about the eligibility criteria fixed in the entrance test notification and also knowing that she was over aged by 31.12.2021, still applied for entrance test. It is not a case of her acquiring disability on a subsequent turn of events."

Grievance About Fixation Of Stamp Duty Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of Trial Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Murarisetty Sai Baba Versus Ommina China Eswaraiah

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 14

The Andhra Pradesh Court recently ruled that the any grievance relating to fixation of stamp duty and penalty would only be a revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the trial court would have no role in the fixation of the stamp duty or penalty.

The respondent had filed suit against the petitioner for eviction and recovery of damages for use of the suit schedule property. The Petitioner had sought to mark an agreement of sale as part of his defence.

Person Can't Be Prosecuted For Abetment Of Suicide Merely Because Complainant Was Embarrassed About Being Beaten Up Publicly: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title : Vegulla Leela Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 15

In a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR with respect to offences punishable under Sections 306 read with 116 of the Indian Penal Code by holding that merely because the victim felt embarrassed on being beaten in public and took a hasty decision to commit suicide, the Petitioner cannot be found fault with under Section 306 of IPC.

"As can be seen from the facts of the case, prima facie there is absolutely no allegation that the petitioner has abetted the de facto complainant to commit suicide. It is well settled law that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 107 IPC regarding intentional instigation said to have been given by the petitioner to the de facto complainant to commit suicide or intentional aid said to have been given by the petitioner to him to commit suicide shall be established," the Court observed.

Writ Petition Maintainable Even If There Is Alternate Remedy, Where Principles Of Natural Justice Are Not Followed: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : Polu Venkata Lakshmamma & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 16

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated the established principle that even if there is an alternative remedy available, in case the rules of natural justice have not been followed, the aggrieved may approach the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Mere Fact That FIR Was Lodged As A Counterblast Not Ground To Quash It U/S 482 CrPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Smt. H. Malleswaramma Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 17

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the mere fact that FIR was lodged against the accused as a counter blast by itself cannot be a ground to quash the FIR under Section 482 of CrPC. It is a matter to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, it held.

Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed,

"that the present report was lodged against them as a counter blast by itself cannot be a ground to quash the F.I.R. Whether the allegations are false or not and whether the report was lodged as a counter blast to the report lodged by the de facto complainant or not is the matter to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Therefore, there are no valid legal grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the F.I.R at this stage."

S. 37 NDPS Act | Regular Bail For Possession Of 'Ganja' Can Be Granted If It Is Not Of Commercial Quantity: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: BIKKA PARVATHI Versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 18

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted regular bail to an accused under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, noting that the rigours of bail stipulated under Section 37 thereof do not apply in case the recovery is not of commercial quantity contraband.

Customer Of Prostitution Is Not Liable For Prosecution: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Chennuboina Raj Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 75

The allegation against the petitioner was that at the time when police raided the brothel house, they found the petitioner there as customer who visited for prostitution in payment of money to other accused.

In Sri Roopendra Singh v. State of Karnataka (2021), Z. Lourdiah Naidu v. State of A.P. (2014), Goenka Sajan Kumar v. State of A.P (2014), it became a settled law that those who visited the brothel house for prostitution as mere customers were not liable for prosecution. The court for this reason allowed the Criminal Petition.

Can't Exercise Writ Jurisdiction To Interfere In Election Process Once It Has Commenced: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Yelamanchili Satya Krishna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 76

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently did not intervene in the election process of a Bank registered under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995. The Election was alleged to be irregular and contrary to law but the Court held that it cannot stall the election process once it has commenced.

"Incumbent Upon Govt Servants To Promptly Comply With Judicial Orders": Andhra Pradesh HC Sentences 3 IAS Officers To One Month Jail For Contempt

Case Title: NMS Goud v. Punam Malakondaiah & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 77

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently sentenced 3 IAS officers to one month jail for contempt of court while observing that it is incumbent on Government servants to ensure that the orders of this Court are complied with promptitude.

The observation came from Justice Battu Devanand:

"The contempt case is allowed and the contemnors are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) week each. The contemnor Nos. 2 and 3, who are present before this Court, requested the Court to suspend the sentence. Considering their request, the sentence is suspended for a period of six (06) weeks. The 1st Contemnor is directed to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on or before 13.05.2022."

Magistrate Has To Apply His Mind While Referring Matter To Police U/S 156(3) CrPC If There Is Delay In Filing Of Complaint: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: M.SHYAMA SUNDAR NAIDU, CHITTOOR DT; 2 OTRS., Versus THE STATE OF AP., REP PP AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 78

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that criminal law set into motion vide Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) without application of mind and for the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint was liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court observed that 

"The Magistrate has also not applied his mind while referring the matter to the police on the same day, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., without considering the fact that the complaint is made nearly after 08 months of the offence occurred, which is contrary to the observations made by the Apex Court in judgments cited supra. Taking the material facts into consideration, the facts of the present case squarely fit within the purview guidelines passed by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal's case and also the law laid down by the Apex court. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by invoking the inherent power of the High Court."

Arbitration Clause In Unstamped Charter Party Agreement Can Invoke Jurisdiction Under Section 9 Of A&C Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: VR Commodities Private Limited versus Norvic Shipping Asia Pte. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 79

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a substantive agreement is an independent and autonomous clause, and even if the substantive agreement is not duly stamped as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the arbitration clause is admissible in evidence before the Court who can take into consideration the arbitration clause to decide an application for grant of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy, held that since the arbitration agreement is not chargeable with stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, by applying the doctrine of separability the arbitration agreement is admissible in evidence before the Court since it is a separate contract.

[AP Endowments Act] Consider Granting Exemption To Temples Having Less Than Rs. 5 Lakhs Annual Income: AP High Court To State

Case title - Allaparthi Venkata Chalapathi Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others [W.P.No.21805 of 2021]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 80

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State government to consider the grant of exemption to temples having an annual income of less than Rs.5 lakhs from the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 including the requirement to pay the mandatory contributions.

The Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao issued this order while dealing with a plea moved by Sri Alaparthamma temple's (Alaparru village of Nagaram) founder family member, Allaparthi Venkata Chalapathi Rao.

Storage Of Goods Outside The SEZ Area Doesn't Automatically Confer Power On DRI Officers Under The Customs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s Divine Chemtee Ltd and Anr. versus Principal Commissioner of Customs and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 81

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the Customs authorities (Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)) have no power or jurisdiction to inspect or seize goods in respect of units situated in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) area for a violation under the Customs Act, 1962 committed prior to 2016.

The Bench, consisting of Justices C. Praveen Kumar and V. Sujatha, held that export goods, in respect of the SEZ unit, cannot be brought within the purview of the Customs authority merely because the said goods are taken out from the SEZ area to be transported to a Port or to a storage unit before being exported. The Court added that storage of goods outside the SEZ area cannot automatically confer power on the DRI Officers to initiate proceedings under the Customs Act.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition Of A Husband In An Inter-Religious Marriage To Set His Wife At Liberty

Case Title : Chunduru Karthik Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 82

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to police officials to secure the presence of petitioner's wife before the Court and set her at liberty.

The facts of the case were that an inter-religious marriage was performed between the petitioner and detenu as per the rites and customs of Christian religion against the will and wishes of the parents and other relatives of the detenu. Due to solemnization of their marriage, the parents and relatives of detenu bore grudge against them and started harassing with active assistance of Police authorities. However, the Bench comprising of Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao and Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao on considering the facts and submissions held that there was no need for interference of parents as the parties were major and wanted to live together.

Penalty Can't Be Imposed Without Giving The Opportunity Of Hearing To The Taxpayer: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: S.P.Y. Agro Industries Limited Vs Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 83

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the GST penalty cannot be imposed without giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice V. Sujatha has observed that any rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act, which adversely affects any person, is possible only after following the principles of natural justice.

"Section 161 of the Act provides that any rectification which adversely affects any person is possible only after following the principles of natural justice. Since the order impugned substantially affects the assessee as a penalty is sought to be imposed, which demand did not form part of the notice dated 13.08.2020, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the orders under challenge are set aside. The respondents are permitted to proceed further by issuing a fresh notice and passing orders in accordance with law," the court added.

"All Family Members Are Being Roped In": Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Case Of Dowry, Attempted Murder

Case Title: Syed Bilal & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 84

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a family accused of demanding dowry from the complainant- daughter in law, and attempting to murder her by strangulation.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed that though their were disputes between the husband (petitioner no. 1) and wife (complainant), the entire family had been roped into the controversy.

Liberty | Don't Make Domiciliary Visits To Former TDP Minister Ch Ayyanna's House Without There Being Any Crime: Andhra Pradesh HC To Police

Case Title: Sri.Chintakayala Ayyannapatrudu vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 85

The Andhra Pradesh High Court last week directed the state police department not to invade or visit Ch Ayyanna's house without there being any crime.

A single judge bench of Justice C Manavendranth Roy directed the Home department to submit full details pertaining to the issue and disposed of the case with a direction to the police – not to make any domiciliary visits to the house of the petitioner.

"However, as it is pleaded in the Writ Petition that as the petitioner made certain comments against the present government and the ruling party that he may be arrested by implicating him in a false case and that he would be arrested, considering the said apprehension of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent police officials not to make any such domiciliary visits to the house of the petitioner or interfere with his personal liberty without there being any crime or F.I.R. registered against him and without following the due process of law and this would suffice to protect the interests of the petitioner in view of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Andhra Pradesh HC Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To One Accused Of "Monitoring Through WhatsApp" Mob Agitation Over Renaming District After Ambedkar

Case Title: Desamsetti Siva Madhu Kalyan vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 86

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused pre-arrest bail to one accused of "monitoring" through WhatsApp messages, a violent mob that was agitating against renaming of Konaseema District after Dr. BR Ambedkar, last month.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti noted that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in all the complaints. Witnesses also specifically mentioned his presence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the name of the Petitioner reflected in the complaint as well as the statements of list of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, the Court found that the Petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail and that his custodial interrogation is necessary.

Rowdy Sheets Can't Continue Where Accused Is Acquitted & No Criminal Case Is Pending: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: SHAIK ABDUL GANI MIAH, KURNOOL DIST & ANO vs SECY, HOME DEPT, HYD & 4 OT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 87

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when an accused person has been acquitted of criminal cases pending against him and no more criminal cases are pending against him, then continuing a 'Rowdy Sheet' against such a person is not justified.

A single bench constituting of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath observed,

"It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioners have been acquitted in the said two murder cases. Admittedly, no criminal case is pending against the petitioners now in any Court of law. Therefore, when the petitioners are acquitted in the said two murder cases and when no case is pending against them in any Court at present, there is absolutely no justification to continue the said rowdy sheets that were opened against them when the two crimes for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC are pending against them. The respondents ought to have closed the said rowdy sheets after they were acquitted in the said two murder cases."

"Sponsored Candidates Are A Distinct Class By Themselves": Andhra Pradesh HC Denies Reclassification Of Sponsored Medical Seat To General

Case Title: Kuchibhotla Srivatsa Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 88

In a writ petition challenging rejection of admission under a sponsored seat, the Andhra Pradesh High Court clarified that 'sponsored candidates' are a distinct class of applicants who have to fulfill certain eligibility criteria for being treated as such and the Petitioner did not fulfil the criteria for admission under it; hence, there was no breach of rules or violation of equality.

The Court held that principle of res judicata will not apply, as urged by the Petitioner, as the issue of jurisdiction has been left open by the Supreme Court.

Workmen Compensation Act | Loss Of Earning Capacity Upon Amputation Can't Be Equated To Percentage Of Physical Disability: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Harijana P. Israil & P. Mabu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 89

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where an on-site accident leads to loss of limb of a workman, he is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for loss of 100% earning capacity.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed that in such cases, loss of earning capacity cannot be taken to be the same as the percentage of physical disability. It also held that compensation under the Act becomes payable from the date of accident and hence, interest on compensation is calculated from the date of accident till actual realization.

The Arbitration Clause Contained In A Manual Issued By The Government As A Generic Guideline Is Not Binding: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: TBS India Telematic and Biomedical Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare, Arbitration Application No. 26 of 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 90

The Andhra Pradesh High Court Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra has held that arbitration clause contained in a government manual as generic guidelines cannot be invoked by the parties.

The Court also observed that there cannot be an arbitration clause in a sub-contract or in a separate document when there is no binding agreement between the parties in the first place.

SC/ST Act Not Attracted When Offence Not Done With Intention That Victim Belongs To A Particular Caste: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: ILLURI ESWARAIH vs T V JAGGI REDDY

 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 91

A single judge bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti of the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a person accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The bench held that when the offence alleged is not done with an intention that the victim belongs to a particular case, then the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not get attracted.

Police Can't Carry Out Intrusive Surveillance; Opening Rowdy Sheets, Collecting Photos, Home Visits As Per Standing Orders Violate Privacy : AP High Court

Case Title : Udathu Suresh vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 92

In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the opening of rowdy sheets to brand persons as "rowdies", collection and display of their photos, domiciliary visits and summoning to police station as per the existing Police Standing Orders amount to a "direct infringement of the right to privacy".

The Court held that the Police Standing Orders do not qualify as "law" within the meaning of Article 21 and without the sanction of law, the police cannot collect the personal information of persons and conduct home visits.

"This collection of photos; the display of photos; branding a person as "rowdy"; summoning to the Police Station, parading / waiting domiciliary/home visits etc., as per the Police Station Orders are a direct infringement of the petitioners' right to privacy. Henceforth with the existing Police Standing Orders the police cannot do the same. The police cannot summon any person to the Police Station, visit any home or house for surveillance; for gathering information, take or display photographs, fingerprints etc., or even classify/ label a person as a ROWDY etc. They cannot carry out intrusive or obtrusive surveillance", the judgment delivered by a single bench of Justice DVSS Somajayulu stated.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Rowdy Sheets Citing Udathu Suresh Case Against 'Intrusive Surveillance' By Police

Case Title: K. SRIHARI KUMAR, ANANTAPUR DIST vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPUR DIST & 2 OT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 93

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed multiple rowdy sheets, suspect sheets and history sheets in a batch of writ petitions without going into the merits of the case, in view of the recent common order of the Court in Udathu Suresh vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

In Udathu Suresh, a single bench of the High Court had found that the actions of the police amounted to a violation of the right to privacy, which cannot be restricted without a law and without fulfilling the qualifications laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India.

"No surveillance shall be kept on the petitioners herein on the basis of the said the rowdy-sheets/suspect-sheets/history-sheets and the petitioners shall not be called to the Police Station in connection with any such rowdy-sheets/suspect-sheets/history-sheets, which are now declared as illegal and unconstitutional and which are closed."

Workmen's Compensation Act | Sudden Death When There Was No Indication Of Previous Disease Treated As Stress Of Work: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. SAMBIREDDY VENKATARAMANA 5 ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 94

Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance appeal, holding that the Commissioner's findings as to the nature of work are not open to challenge - by an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and injury - unless perversity is apparent on the face of the record.

The Court stressed upon a liberal interpretation of the Act, keeping its beneficial nature in mind. It held that any sudden death caused shall be treated as stress and strain of the work when there is no indication about previous disease.

GST Demand On Events Posted On Facebook: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Company To Approach Appellate Authority

Case Title: Vasavi Wedding And Event Planners Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 95

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while considering a petition challenging GST demand based on events posted on social media, held that information available on the social media platform of the petitioner shows that the event was conducted.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao dismissed the petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Three Accused Of Agitation Over Renaming District After Ambedkar

Case Title: GURRALA MAHAESH Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 96

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to three persons accused of being part of a violent mob that agitated against renaming of Konaseema District after Dr. BR Ambedkar, last month.

A single judge bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati heard three criminal petitions seeking regular bail. The accused persons had been charged with offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, Andhra Pradesh Police Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Earlier this month, Justice Subba Reddy Satti had heard two bail petitions of persons involved in the same incident.

Preliminary Enquiry Necessary Before Registering FIR If Prima Facie Case Of Cognizable Offence Not Made Out: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : J KRISHNA KISHORE Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 97

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the quashing of FIR as the face value of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint was baseless and no preliminary enquiry was conducted before registration of the FIR in light of guidelines laid down in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014).

"It is clear that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not discloses the commission of offence, and make out the case against the accused, it is liable to be quashed. In the instant case, though they have made allegations against the petitioner, there are no material to show that the petitioner himself has done the acts."

GST Assessment | No Violation Of Natural Justice If Assessee Fails To Respond To Notice Of Personal Hearing: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s.VASAVI WEDDING and EVENT PLANNERS Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 98

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a challenge to the Assessment Order issued to the Petitioner under GST Act, 2017 on the ground that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice as a notice of personal hearing was issued and the Petitioner was given the opportunity to raise objections but he never responded.

Prohibition Under Arbitration Clause To Refer A Dispute Equivalent To Non-Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 99

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an application seeking appointment of Arbitrator as the Arbitration Agreement had a clear prohibition that the no disputes shall be referred to arbitration if the insurance company rejected the claim of liability.

In the present case, the insurance company had rejected the entire claim. The Arbitration Clause set out in the Insurance Policy was as under:

"If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this Policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of a sole arbitrator…"

In the present case, the facts are clear that the respondents have rejected the claim in toto and the prohibition set out in the arbitration clause would apply to the present facts of the case. In the circumstances, there would be no necessity to refer the matter to an arbitrator to decide on the arbitrability of the dispute.

Show-Cause Notice Is A 'Superfluous Formality' If No Prejudice Is Caused: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : M/s. Siva Shankar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 100

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition opposing termination of lease on the ground that except non-issuance of show cause notice, the Petitioner had no other cause or prejudice.

Justice R. Raghunandan Rao relied on the following principle laid down in State of UP v. Sudheer Kumar Singh (2020):

"Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused."

Exemption In Payment Of Court Fee Is A State Subject & Is Not Guaranteed Under Legal Services Authorities Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Katepogu Danamaiah v. The Chairman, Legal Service Authority

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 101

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Section 12 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 does not provide for exemption in payment of Court Fee to the persons specified therein including Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. For exemption in Court Fee, provisions under State Court Fee Act have to be applied.

Explaining the procedure to be followed, a division bench comprising Justices C.Praveen Kumar and Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda said,

"A person is not entitled to claim exemption of Court Fee under Section 12 (a) or under Section 12(g) of the Act, on a mere representation that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or is not meeting the financial requirements as contemplated under Section 12(h) of the Act. What all has to be done by the said person is that he should approach the Legal Services Authority and seek help under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act. If the concerned Legal Services Authority is satisfied that such a person satisfies the criteria specified in Section 12 of the Act, then it may be open to the concerned authority to invoke the stipulations contained in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.73 Law dated 19.06.2007 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, subject to the stipulations contained in the said G.O."

Abetment Of Suicide | Mere Allegation Of Pressure At Workplace Without Any Specific Act Will Not Attract S.306 IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: B.SRIDEVI Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 102

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to an accused under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (punishment for abetment of suicide).

Justice Subba Reddy Satti placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan (2021) to reiterate that mere allegation of pressure or harassment without any positive act would not suffice to attract ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.

Decree Is Ex-Parte In Nature If Defendant Could Not Adduce Evidence After Filing Written Statement: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : S SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU Versus V.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 103

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently set aside a decree and judgment which was ex-parte in nature as the defendant could not adduce evidence during trial due to ill health.

"the impugned decree and judgment are only ex- parte in nature since the evidence of defendant was not adduced in this case and he failed to attend the Court…So there is no demure that in the instant case also the decree and judgment are ex-parte though the trial Court rendered an elaborate judgment. In that view also we think an opportunity should be given to the defendant to contest the suit by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree."

S.12 Workmen's Compensation Act Secures Right To Compensation Of Employees Engaged By Principal Employer Through Contractor: Andhra Pradesh HC

Title: AP GENCO,RTPP,CUDDAPAH vs Y.DEVANANDAM & 4 OTHERS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 104

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has made it clear that Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is intended to secure an employee's right to claim compensation not only against his immediate employer who, in the Act, is referred to as a contractor, but also against the person who had employed such contractor to execute the work.

A single judge bench of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao observed,

"The main object of enacting Section 12 of the Act is to secure compensation to the employees who have been engaged by the principal employer through the contractor for the work which the principal employer is supposed to carry out by his own employees."

Mere Allegation Of Harassment Doesn't Attract S.306 IPC: AP High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Women Accused Of Abetting Their Husbands' Suicides

Title: Attuluru Ramamoorthy vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 105

A single judge bench of Justice Subba Reddy of Andhra Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to two women accused of abetment of suicide by their husbands, in separate cases.

There must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement towards the commission of suicide, the Court said. It noted that conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained merely on allegations of harassment, without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on part of the accused, which led or compelled another person to commit suicide.

Article 162 | Govt Has Discretion To Establish Community Health Centre At A Particular Place: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Title: PADALA DHARMARAJU vs THE SATE OF AP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 106

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently cited State's expansive executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution to hold that it has the discretion to situate community health centres.

Justice M. Ganga Rao thus quashed a writ petition against the government decision of constructing a new Community Health Centre in Z.Ragampeta Village instead of Jaggampeta Village.

Court Can Direct Passport Officer To Issue Police Clearance Certificate To A Citizen: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Title: Pasagadula Sai Kiran v. The Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 107

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently directed a Regional Passport Officer to issue police clearance certificate to an Angola based Indian citizen, after recording all the criminal cases filed against him, for renewal of his visa.

A single judge bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao observed that the authority had been issuing such certificates to citizens staying abroad and it cannot take the stand that since it is a "voluntary service" there cannot be any direction to issue or not to issue such certificates.

Arnesh Kumar Guidelines: AP High Court Directs Police To Comply With Arrest Procedure, Issue 41-A CrPC Notices

Title: GALIVEETI SIVA RAMI REDDY Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 108

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently disposed of two applications for anticipatory bail in separate cases, while directing the state Police to ensure that the procedure and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar are complied with before effecting arrest.

The judgment obligates the Police to issue notice of appearance under Section 41-A CrPC in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required.

Arbitration Agreement Not A Bar For Referring Parties To Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s. Dalapathi Constructions versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 109

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a reference to the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) for conciliation and subsequent arbitration, is not barred on account of the presence of an arbitration agreement between the parties.

The Single Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that even if the arbitration agreement between the parties provides for a different method of constituting an Arbitral Tribunal, the party can be referred to the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act for recovery of its dues.

Denial Of Equal Pay For Equal Work Offends Articles 14 & 21 Of Constitution: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Title: Vallepu Naga Raju Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 110

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has overturned the State's decision to not increase the remuneration granted to Computer Assistants engaged on contractual basis in various district courts of the state, attached to the post of data processing officer, with effect from 01.04.2019.

A division bench of Justice A.V. Sesha and Justice G. Ramakrishna Prasad held that having extended the benefit of revised remuneration earlier, on par with the data processing officers, there was absolutely no justification in denying the benefits now.

Rape Case Can't Be Lodged Merely Because Complainant's Consensual Relationship With Accused Did Not Work Out: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Title: JATOTH ADITYA RATHOD Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 111

A single judge bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that failure of a consensual relationship cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for offence of Rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").

The petitioner, accused of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(N), 417, 420, 323, 384, 506 read with 109, IPC, had sought a regular bail. The complainant had stated that she and the petitioner were in a relationship.

Brothel Customers Indulging In Sexual Intercourse With Prostitutes Can't Be Booked Under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: Korada Subrahmanyam versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 112

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a brothel customer under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

A bench of Justice Ninala Jayasurya reiterated the settled legal position that a customer who visited the brothel to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute on payment of cash is not liable for prosecution for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act.

S.311 CrPC Obligates Trial Court To Recall Witness If Its Evidence Is Necessary To Decide Real Controversy: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : Seva Swarna Kumari @ Kumaramma and others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (AP) 113

Andhra Pradesh High Court, while setting aside an order passed in a criminal petition for trial of cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, reiterated that, while dealing with applications under Section 311, CrPC, the Court is required to exercise its discretion judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily.

'Cross examination of a witness in a criminal case is an important part of trial and it is only means to elicit truth from the witness to prove the innocence of the accused. If, such right is denied, the petitioners/accused will be put to serious loss and it amounts to denial of fair trial….According to Section 311 Cr.P.C., any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. Section 311 Cr.P.C contains two limbs. The first limb is discretion of the Court and the second limb does not confer any discretion and it is obligatory for the Court to summon, recall and re-examine a witness, if the Court finds that the evidence of the proposed witness is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties, effectively."

Mob Violence | Bail Can Be Granted Without Costs In Absence Of Material To Show Accused Person Damaged Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: YARRA SRINU Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 114

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to the petitioners who were accused in mob violence without imposition of costs as there was no material to show that the petitioners had damaged the property.

Failed Relationship Not Ground To Lodge FIR For Repeated Rape U/S 376(2)(n) IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: JATOTH ADITYA RATHOD Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 115

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent case reiterated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan (2022 Live Law (SC) 599) that if the complainant willingly stayed in a relationship, then the relationship eventually not working out cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

Justice Ravi Cheemalapati was of the view that the complaint was lodged when the relationship was not working out. Since the Apex Court decision squarely was applicable to the facts of the case, the Court granted regular bail with certain conditions.

S.482 CrPC Petition Maintainable In Exceptional Cases Where Remedy Of Revision U/S 397 CrPC Is Also Available: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s. Design Tech Systems Pvt.Ltd., Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 116

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable as the Court below was erroneous in passing orders under Section 451 CrPC to freeze amounts (property) in petitioner's account which had no reasonable connection with any commission of an offence.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (2016) to reiterate that Section 397 CrPC was not a bar to maintain the petition under Section 482 CrPC in exceptional circumstances.

Minor Violations In Construction Of Building Which Do Not Affect Public At Large Can Be Considered To Be Regularised: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: E.V. Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 117

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the Writ Petition to not allow the Corporation to demolish the building of the owner/petitioner till his explanation to the notice and request for regularization are considered with reasons. The court relied on catena of decisions related to illegal constructions to hold that deviation can be regularised if it is trivial and do not affect public at large. Additionally, the Apex Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) has laid emphasis on the point of necessity of giving reasons by a body or authority in support of its decision if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

"Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations...Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts."

Lessee Mining Company Liable To Pay 'Dead Rent' When Unable To Extract Mineral For Non-Availability Of Clearances: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s. Mangalore Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 118

Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Mangalore Minerals Private Limited for a declaration that the action of the State Government in insisting for payment of dead rent for the period 2013-20, even though the quarry was not in operation for want of environmental clearance, as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed,

"It would be an implied condition of the lease that the responsibility of obtaining necessary clearances for carrying on mining activity would be on the lessee. In such a situation, it would not be permissible for a lessee to avoid payment of dead rent on the ground of lack of clearances for carrying on mining activity."

Municipalities Cannot Grant Permission For Installation Of Statute/ Structures In Public Utility Places: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Title: Guduru Sekhar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 119

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has made it clear that Municipal Corporation or Municipalities cannot grant any permission for installation of any statute or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.

A single judge bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari further held that even if any permission was granted previously pursuant to which any statute is being installed now that can also not be done contrary to the specific order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.02.2013.

Acquittal In Criminal Case Can Be Considered To Determine Punishment In Department Enquiry: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Ram Chandra Reddy v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ananthapur & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 120

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the order of acquittal in a criminal case can be considered in a punishment to be imposed in the departmental enquiry.

However, the order of acquittal will not be determinative where (i) the order of acquittal has not been passed on the same set of facts or same set of evidence; (ii) where the delinquent officer was charged with something more than the subject matter of the criminal case and. or covered by a decision of civil court.

Criminal Proceedings And Disciplinary Enquiry Can Go On Simultaneously: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Subba Rao v. Enquiry Officer, Cotton Corporation of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 121

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court placing reliance on multitude of decisions reiterated the point that disciplinary proceedings should not be stayed only on the sole ground that criminal proceedings are pending. In the facts of the case, the criminal proceedings were installed for last more than almost 12 years without any progress.

Furthermore, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed that the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings were different from the charges in criminal proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 IPC. In addition, there was no question of any disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings as in Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the onus was on the accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known source of income.

Workmen Compensation Award Must Record Finding On Jurisdictional Fact Whether Injury/Disease Is Caused Incidental To Duties Of Service: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. M. Lakshmi Ramateertham

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 122

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the Commissioner in an award under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 has to make a specific finding on whether the injury has been caused to employee by accident arising out of and in the course of employment or if the employee has contracted any occupational disease peculiar to that employment.

PwD Act | Alternate Employment With Same Pay Benefits To Employee Who Suffers Disability During Course Of Employment A Statutory Right: Andhra HC

Case Title: Ch. S. Rajeswara Rao v. Govt. of AP, Transport Department

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 123

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed payment of wages to a workman from the date he suffered from disability during course of employment till he was provided an alternative employment under Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995.

"Section 47 itself provides for grant of alternative employment to a disabled employee or on equivalent posts carrying the same pay scale and not to oust such employee from the service."

Payment Of Gratuity Act Is A Beneficial Legislation For Employees And Overrides Other Enactments: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. The Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 124

In a recent ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has to be interpreted in favour of workman and it overrides all other statutory legislations.

The court relied on Apex Court decision in Beed District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2006) in which it was held "the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial statute. When two views are possible, having regard to the purpose the Act seeks to achieve being a social welfare legislation, it may be construed in favour of the workman."

Punishment Of Dismissal Proportionate For Bank Employees For Failure To Discharge Duty: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: Harinarayan Seet versus Andhra Bank

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 125

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that Bank employees are required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity and if any such employee is found guilty of failure to discharge his duty with diligence, he can be meted with the dismissal from service as a proportionate punishment.

The court placed reliance on Apex Court decisions in Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank (supra), Canara Bank v. VK. Awasthy (2005) to hold as:

"Once it is recorded, concurrently, that the petitioner being the employee of the bank and having failed to discharge his duty in processing in the matter of grant of loans which were found to be in the names of fake pattadars, considering the finding of proved guilt recorded concurrently by the disciplinary as also by the appellate authority, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charges."

GST Refund Application: Andhra Pradesh High Court Excludes Period From 1st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 For Limitation

Case Title: M/S. Gandhar oil refinery (India) Limited v. Assistant commissioner of sales tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 126

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has relied on the notification dated 05.07.2022 and held that the period from 1st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022, for the computation of the period of limitation for filing refund applications shall stand excluded.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that the application for refund was not made beyond the period of limitation and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Rejection Of GST Refund Application By Axis Bank

Case Title: Axis Bank Ltd. Versus The Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 127

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of a GST refund application by Axis Bank and remanded the matter back to the original authority.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has referred to a circular dated 25.09.2021 issued clarifying that the insertion of rule (1A) to Rule 89 provides a time limit of 2 years. The two-year time limit would apply from the date of the introduction of the said rule and not from the date of payment of GST.

Review Of Judgment/Order Passed Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act Is Not Permissible: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Nagireddy Srinivasa Rao versus Chinnari Suryanarayana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 128

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that review of an order/judgment passed under Section 11 of the A&C Act is not permissible.

The Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that power of review is the creature of a statute and in absence of any such provision in a statute, an order/judgment cannot be reviewed on its merit unless it is for some procedural irregularity.

The Court held that the A&C does not, either expressly or by implication, provide for any review of an order passed under Section 11 of the Act, therefore, the Court cannot review such an order on its merit.

Mutation Order Cannot Be Based On Title Deed When Title To Property Under Dispute: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Dr. P. Pranjali v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 129

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while hearing a writ petition challenging the mutation proceedings and the mutation order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Tirupati ('Commissioner'), held that mutation orders must be made on the basis of possession and not based on title deed, when the title itself is contested.

"It is only in the case of undisputed document of title that mutation can be made based on the title deed, but where it is a contested case of title based on so many documents, as in the present case, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hold the gift deed dated 14.11.2006 as valid and its cancellation deed dated 07.09.2010 as contrary to rule...The impugned order of mutation in favour of the 3rd respondent could not be legally passed based upon title in view of the gift deed dated 14.11.2006. The order is passed not on the basis of possession but on the title deed with respect to which there was contest," said the Court.

"Violation Of Article 26(d)" : High Court Stops AP Govt From Taking Over Ahobilam Mutt Temple

Case Title: K.B. SETHURAMAN versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 130

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the State's decision to appoint an 'Executive Officer' to control and manage the affairs of Ahobilam Temple in Kurnool is violative of Article 26(d) of the Constitution and affects the Mathadipathis' right of administration.

The division bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice DVSS Somayajulu made it clear that the Temple is an integral part of the Ahobilam Math, which is situated in Tamilnadu.

"Ahobilam Temple is an integral and inseparable part of Ahobilam Math, which was established as a part of propagation of Hindu religion and for rendering spiritual service for propagating Sri Vaishnavism. The successive Jeeyars are the trustees of the Ahobilam Devasthanam and since the Government cannot appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Math, it has no power to appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Temple by treating it separate from the Math. Appointing an Executive Officer for Temple, which is a part of the Math, is violative of Article 26(d) of the Constitution of India, as the same affects Jeeyars'/Mathadipathis' right of administration".

Second Writ On Same Subject Without Disclosing Pending Litigation: Andhra Pradesh HC Imposes 1 Lakh Cost, Initiates Criminal Contempt Action

Case Title: P. Ranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 131

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a second writ petition filed by the petitioner against the same respondents and for the same relief, observed that the filing of the second writ petition amounted to abuse of the process of the Court.

Rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner as a mere 'afterthought', the bench said:

"Filing of the second petition without making disclosure of the 1st petition on the same subject by the same petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is an effort to get an order, which might have been in his favour, contrary to the earlier order passed in W.P.No.32260 of 2022. The fact of filing and pendency of the earlier W.P.No.32260 of 2022 is a material fact and suppression or concealment of such fact is impermissible to the litigant and even as technique of advocacy. Filing of the false affidavit by the petitioner is an evil and deserves to be curved with strong hand to preserve the purity of the judicial administration."

Rival Groups Shall Not Be Permitted To Meet In Proximity Of Amaravati Maha Padayatra Against Three Capitals: High Court To State

Case Title: Amaravati Parirakshana Samiti v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 132

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday, while hearing a writ petition filed by the Amaravati Parirakshana Samiti Trust, passed multiple directions to ensure the smooth conduct of the Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Arasavilli, in protest against the proposed establishment of three capitals in the State.

The single bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao ordered that the procession of the Padayatra cannot consist of more than 600 persons whose details have already been furnished to the State. The Court ordered that any person seeking to express solidarity would have to express such solidarity only from the side lines and not by joining the procession.

Right To Contest Elections Only A Statutory Right, Not A Fundamental Right: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: C. Vasudeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 133

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the right to contest elections is not a fundamental right but only a statutory right. The observation was made by a single bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy in context of the AP Societies Registration Act, 2001.

"Right to contest election is not a fundamental right. It is only a statutory right. Therefore, it cannot be said that the fundamental right of the petitioner is violated and seeking enforcement of the same that the present Writ Petition is maintainable," said the Court.

Weight Of Arbitration Award (Delivery) Cannot Be Just 55 Grams: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: SAMPATHRAO SUDHAKAR v. EMIRATES INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, ICOMAOA No. 1&2 of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 134

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitration award would weight more than 55 grams and a consignment weighing 55 grams cannot be deemed to be a valid delivery of award.

The bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao also held that an arbitral award passed in violation of Section 7 and 11 of the A&C Act would be a nullity. It held that in absence of an arbitration agreement, there cannot be any arbitration between the parties. Moreover, in absence of the consent of both the parties, an arbitrator cannot assume jurisdiction.

Once Registered As MSME, The Nature Of Activity Cannot Be A Bar To Any Relief Under The Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Dalapathi Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. W.P. NO. 4652 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 135

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once an enterprise is registered with the local MSME Council, it is entitled to all the benefits of the Act and the nature of activity between the parties cannot stand as a bar to any relief provided under the act.

The bench of Justice R. Ragunandan Rao held that MSME Council cannot dismiss an application under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the activity between the parties was merely a 'trading activity', thus, not covered by the provisions of the act.

'Mahapadayatra' Can Be Conducted Only With 600 Identified Farmers : Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Amaravati Parirakshana Samiti versus State of A.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 136

The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to modify restrictions imposed by it on 'Maha Padayatra' announced by Amaravati Parirakshana Samiti.

The Samiti had announced 'Maha Padayatra' from Amaravati to Arasavilli for expressing their protest against the proposed establishment of three capitals in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

18% GST Payable On Manufacturing Of Alcohol For Human Consumption By Way Of Job Work: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s.Esveeaar Distilleries Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 137

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that 18% GST is payable on the manufacturing of alcohol for human consumption by way of job work.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that alcoholic liquor is not considered a food. Services by way of job work in relation to the manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption are not eligible for 5% GST.

Other Significant Developments 

Criminal Case Files Involving State Minister Stolen From Nellore Court: Andhra Pradesh HC Transfers Probe To CBI

Case Title: In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has asked the CBI to probe into the theft of important case files from a Nellore Court. The case involves a serving Minister in the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Exercising suo moto writ jurisdiction, a division bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy said:

"When such importance is accorded to criminal cases against M.L.As. and M.Ps., the court concerned at Nellore as well as the State machinery including the law enforcing agency should have taken due care and caution to secure the case property; otherwise, in the absence of case property being produced and proved in the court, trial against M.L.As. and M.Ps. may fail for lack of evidence. It is for this reason the matter assumes importance."

Andhra Pradesh High Court Stays The Operation Of The Confiscation Notice Under GST

Case Title: Matrix Traders Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice A.V. Sesha Sai and Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has stayed the operation of the Confiscation Notice issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that, with effect from January 01, 2022, the non-obstante clause has been removed from Section 130.

The Finance Act, 2022 amended Section 130 of the CGST Act to delink the proceedings relating to the confiscation of goods or conveyances and the levy of penalties from the proceedings under section 129 relating to the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.