LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: 28 September 2026 - 04 October, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 225– 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 231

Nominal Index

Chennupalli Seetha v. State Bank of Hyderabad & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 225

B. Sobha and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 226

M. Sankaraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 227

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramasubba Reddy, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 228

X vs State & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 229

B Vijaya Sai v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 230

X vs State of AP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 231

Judgement/ Orders

State Labour Court Can Entertain Industrial Dispute Involving Central Govt-Controlled Bank Employee: AP High Court

Case Title: Chennupalli Seetha v. State Bank of Hyderabad & Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 1327 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 225

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a workman can approach a State Government-constituted Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the industrial dispute arises within the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.

In doing so, the Court set aside an order of the Labour Court, Guntur, which had refused to entertain the dispute on the ground that the Central Government was the appropriate Government for the bank and, therefore, the dispute ought to have been brought before a Labour Court constituted by the Central Government.

Govt Employee's Married Daughter Can't Be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely Due To Marital Status: AP High Court

Case Title :  B. Sobha and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case Number :  W.P. No. 1019 of 2024

Citation :  2026 LiveLaw (AP) 226

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter of a deceased Government employee cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely on the ground of her marital status.

In doing so, the Court noted that marriage does not sever her bond with or conclusively determine her dependency upon her parental family. It directed reconsideration of her claim for compassionate appointment without reference to her being a married daughter.

AP High Court Quashes MGNREGA Employee's Removal After Panchayat Downgraded, Cites Lack Of Hearing Or Alternative Post Under Policy

Case Title: M. Sankaraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 4844 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 227

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the removal of a contractual Field Assistant under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) noting that it was done without notice, without giving a hearing and without offering the alternative engagement contemplated under the applicable policy.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had failed to fulfil the prescribed person-days requirement and, following the downgrading of the Gram Panchayat, could not continue as a Field Assistant.

However, it found that his engagement was discontinued without notice, without affording him an opportunity of being heard and without offering him the alternative engagement as Senior Mate contemplated under the applicable policy.

Bar Licence Holder Can't Claim Refund For Period Licence Remained Suspended Due To Failure To Produce NOC For Renewal: AP High Court

Case Title :  The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramasubba Reddy

Case Number :  W.A. No. 112 of 2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 228

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a bar licence holder cannot claim a refund of proportionate licence fee for the period during which his licence remained suspended.

The suspension followed his failure to produce the required No Objection Certificate (NOC) under Rule 6(V) of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005.

In doing so, the Court set aside the Single Judge's order directing refund of the proportionate licence fee and dismissed the writ petition filed by the licence holder.

AP High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against Husband, In-Laws; Notes Wife's Kin Were Earlier Convicted For Assaulting Them

Case Title :  X vs State & Anr.

Case Number :  Criminal Petition No. 7328 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 229

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a cruelty case against a husband and his family members, finding that the wife's complaint was lodged as a counterblast after members of her family were convicted for attacking the husband and his family under Sections 323 and 506 IPC.

While examining the complaint and charge sheet, the Court found that there was no specific overt act or allegation against the accused to attract Section 498A IPC. It also noted that the earlier incident leading to the conviction was not mentioned in the wife's complaint. 

Courts Can't Resort To Coercive Process Mechanically: AP High Court Recalls NBW Against Senior Citizen In Cheque Dishonour Case

Case Title :  B Vijaya Sai v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another

Case Number :  Criminal Petition No. 5860 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 230

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), being a coercive and preventive process, requires due consideration and cannot be resorted to routinely or mechanically. 

The Court made the observation while dealing with a case arising from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.It stressed that the Court must consider the facts and circumstances and record reasons before resorting to such coercive process. 

In doing so, the Court recalled an order issuing an NBW against a 70-year-old accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881.

AP High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against Husband's NRI Relatives For Lack Of S.188 CrPC Sanction

Case Title :  X vs State of AP & Ors.

Case Number :  Criminal Petition No. 5220 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 231

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an NRI brother-in-law and sister-in-law of a woman for alleged cruelty, criminal intimidation and dowry offences arising from alleged incidents in the United States and India.

The allegations against the petitioners were two-fold. One set related to their alleged conduct during the complainant's stay in the United States, while the other concerned alleged incidents after she returned to India. 

The Court held that the prosecution for alleged offences committed in the United States was legally infirm as no prior sanction of the Central Government had been obtained under Section 188 Cr.P.C.

The Court also found that the allegations concerning the incidents allegedly committed in India were vague and omnibus and did not contain specific allegations or the necessary ingredients to attract Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.