LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 20 - July 26, 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 153Nominal IndexVice Chairman-Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. v. Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. connected with Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. v. APSRTC & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131Sri Kudithi Gurayya & Anr. v. Smt. Akula Gowri Sudha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 132M/s. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 153
Nominal Index
Vice Chairman-Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. v. Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. connected with Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. v. APSRTC & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131
Sri Kudithi Gurayya & Anr. v. Smt. Akula Gowri Sudha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 132
M/s. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (along with connected appeals), 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 133
APSRTC v. Smt. P. Jyothi Chittoor & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 134
Gudala Lovalakshmi & Anr. v. Marthi Ramanababu @ Bujji & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 135
Guduru Uma Maheswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 136
Davuluri Venkateswara Rao v. Davuluri Veeraiah (Died) & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 137
S. Janardhana v. Shri Anil Kumar Singhal & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 138
Kum. C. Rohini Roy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 139
U. Kalpana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 140
X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 141
Sidagam Jatlamma v. Pandaranki Veerababu & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 142
Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 143
Mekathoti Yesupadam @ Seshu Babu v. Tamada Ratna Kumari, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 144
M. Annapurna Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 145
N. Anjinaiah @ Sakkara Anjineyulu (Died) by LRs v. N. Anumanna, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 146
R. G. Maddilety v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 147
K.G. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 148
V. Seenaiah v. Nellore Sudhakar & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 149
M. Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 150
T. Gevanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 151
Shaik Shahina & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 152
Mathi Venkata Lakshmi & Anr. v. Pushadapu Sambasiva Rao & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 153
Judgement/ Orders
Case Title: Vice Chairman-Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. v. Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. connected with Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. v. APSRTC & Anr.
Case Nos.: M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 3084 of 2012 and 943 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that a public transport operator's duty of care outweighs a passenger's failure to exercise caution. It thus enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a man who died after being run over by an APSRTC bus— from Rs. 3.85 lakh to Rs. 8.40 lakh.
On the evidence, the Court found that although the deceased could have avoided the accident by not attempting to reserve the seat through the window, the driver had the last opportunity to prevent the mishap as the deceased was on the driver's side and visible through the rear-view mirror. It also observed that the management's failure to regulate passenger movement at the bus stand contributed to the accident.
Case Title: Sri Kudithi Gurayya & Anr. v. Smt. Akula Gowri Sudha & Ors.
Case No.: W.A. No. 483 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 132
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot succeed on the weakness of the opposite party's case and must stand on the strength of its own case, observing that interim relief cannot be granted merely because the opposite party's counsel failed to answer a legal query posed by the Court.
Accordingly, it set aside a Single Judge's interim order in a land dispute, holding that the writ petitioners had to independently establish a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief.
Case Title: M/s. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (along with connected appeals)
Case Nos.: W.A. Nos. 618, 609, 627, 628 & 666 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 133
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a batch of five writ appeals, holding that a company which had litigated the same land dispute for decades without questioning the validity of statutory notices could not, after suffering adverse decisions, seek to reopen the matter by contending that the notices had been issued to its predecessor company following amalgamation.
Having fully participated in the earlier proceedings and suffered adverse decisions, the company could not, at this stage, challenge the acquisition on the ground that the notices had been addressed to Hindustan Polymers. The Court further held that the principal controversy regarding withdrawal of exemption had already attained finality.
Case Title: APSRTC v. Smt. P. Jyothi Chittoor & Ors.
Case No.: M.A.C.M.A. No. 751 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 134
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while an appellant is ordinarily entitled to unconditionally withdraw an appeal under the CPC in a motor accident case, respondent party cannot insist that the appellate court decide the matter on merits in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objections.
At the same time, the Court held that where the appeal compelled the claimants to appear before the court, they are entitled to costs with interest.
Case Title: Gudala Lovalakshmi & Anr. v. Marthi Ramanababu @ Bujji & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.10088 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 135
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a fresh DNA test may be directed in exceptional circumstances where a child's right to maintenance and determination of paternity is directly in issue, notwithstanding an earlier DNA report obtained during criminal proceedings.
In doing so, the Court allowed a mother and her minor daughter's plea seeking a fresh DNA examination, holding that the child's right to identity, maintenance and welfare cannot be foreclosed merely because an earlier DNA report remained unchallenged.
Case Title: Guduru Uma Maheswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 5730 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 136
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a hotel employee accused in a Rs. 50.93 lakh misappropriation case, holding that in the absence of any specific allegation or prima facie material connecting him with the alleged offences making him face trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court held that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 408 and 120B IPC were not satisfied, as the material on record did not disclose entrustment of property or the petitioner's involvement in any conspiracy. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings against him.
Case Title: Davuluri Venkateswara Rao v. Davuluri Veeraiah (Died) & Ors.
Case No.: Appeal Suit No. 1776 of 2001
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 137
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a registered gift deed, once accepted by the donee, cannot be unilaterally revoked by the donor through a revocation deed executed before the Sub-Registrar, and that such revocation deeds are void unless the gift is first set aside by a competent civil court.
In doing so, the court held that there is no presumption that property is joint family property merely because the parties constitute a Hindu joint family, and the burden lies on the person asserting it to prove otherwise.
Case Title: S. Janardhana v. Shri Anil Kumar Singhal & Ors.
Case No.: Contempt Case No. 3541 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 138
Holding that a contempt petition must ordinarily be filed within one year from the date of the alleged contempt, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a contempt case as barred by limitation, rejecting the petitioner's plea that the non-compliance of the earlier court order constituted a continuing wrong.
The Court observed that where a court order prescribes a specific time for compliance, limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 begins to run from the expiry of that period, and cannot be indefinitely extended merely by describing the breach as a continuing wrong.
Case Title: Kum. C. Rohini Roy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 5209 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 139
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed cheating FIR against the Chief Executive Officer of a company accused of supplying inferior and substandard quality of oxygen plant during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the allegation at best amounts to deficiency in service and would not attract criminal offences.
The Court observed that to attract the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be dishonest intention from the very beginning of the transaction. It found that the material on record showed that the petitioner had erected the shed and installed the oxygen plant pursuant to the agreement between the parties and had raised invoices for the work carried out.
The Court also noted that the complainant had already instituted a civil suit concerning the same transaction. Therefore, it held that no dishonest intention could be inferred from the inception and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: U. Kalpana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No.18726 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 140
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a government servant awarded minor penalty of censure can be denied promotion for one year under G.O.Ms.No.53, as the Government Order has the force of law and validly supplements the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
In doing so, the Court refused to direct the immediate promotion of a Hostel Welfare Officer (Grade-II), who had challenged the authorities' decision to overlook her for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer (Grade-I) after she was awarded the minor penalty of censure.
Case Title: X v. Y
Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 946 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 141
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Family Courts cannot examination-in-chief evidence in the form of affidavit in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS), as such procedure is contrary to mandatory requirement under S.126(2) CrPC which requires presence of person from whom maintenance is sought.
In doing so, the Court set aside a Family Court order awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000 to the wife and Rs. 20,000 to the minor son and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after recording evidence in accordance with law.
Case Title: Sidagam Jatlamma v. Pandaranki Veerababu & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 1515 of 2025
Citation: 2026LiveLaw (AP) 142
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an amendment application seeking to correct the plaintiff's name and the extent of a property in a partition suit cannot be refused merely because it is sought after commencement of trial, so long as it does not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the opposite party.
In doing so, the Court allowed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and permitted amendment of the plaintiff's name in the cause title and correction of the extent of one of the suit schedule properties.
Case Title: Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 2001 of 2024
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 143
The Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with pending tenancy proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that its supervisory jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked where an effective alternative remedy exists.
It further held that questions requiring factual adjudication, such as whether the relationship between landlord and tenant existed before the repeal of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, must be decided by the competent Tenancy Tribunal and not in proceedings under Article 227.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a third party challenging the very numbering of a tenancy case under the repealed Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956.
Case Title: Mekathoti Yesupadam @ Seshu Babu v. Tamada Ratna Kumari
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 2296 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 144
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where attachment of a retired employee's retirement benefits is sought in execution proceedings, the executing court must first identify the particular head of retirement benefits sought to be attached, as benefits such as gratuity and provident fund are exempt from attachment under Section 60 CPC.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order directing attachment of Rs. 15 lakh from the petitioner's retirement benefits in the execution petition and remitted the matter to the executing court for fresh adjudication after satisfying itself about the particular head of retirement benefits sought to be attached.
Case Title: M. Annapurna Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 8080 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 145
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed cruelty FIR agaist a woman accused of being the second wife of a married man, after noting that she would not fall under the category of "relative" to invoke Section 498A IPC.
Examining the material on record, the High Court noted that the complainant and accused No.1 continued to reside together despite their marital disputes and that no divorce proceedings had been initiated. It observed that the complainant had produced no proof of the alleged second marriage and further remarked that, if such a marriage had in fact taken place, the petitioner herself could be an aggrieved person under Section 494 IPC, having allegedly been deceived into marrying a man with a living spouse.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner (A6).
Case Title: N. Anjinaiah @ Sakkara Anjineyulu (Died) by LRs v. N. Anumanna
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 2230 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 146
The Andhra Pradesh High Court condoned delay of 1024 days in filing an application to bring the legal heirs of a deceased appellant on record, reiterating that in a pending appeal a party is not expected to keep visiting the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position of the case.
The High Court observed that applications for setting aside abatement deserve a more liberal approach than other applications for condonation of delay.
The Court reiterated that the decisive factor in condoning delay is the sufficiency of the explanation, not the length of the delay. Observing that legal heirs may remain unaware of pending litigation where the father had not informed them about the proceedings, and therefore the delay should have been condoned.
Case Title: R. G. Maddilety v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11415 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 147
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the cancellation of a fair price shop dealer's authorization after he was elected as a Sarpanch, holding that under the State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, a person cannot simultaneously hold the post of Fair Price Shop dealer and a public office such as Sarpanch.
The Court observed that the Control Order, 2018 and G.O.Ms.No. 32 clearly prohibit Fair Price Shop dealers from holding public office. It held that once the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, he could not continue as a Fair Price Shop dealer and was required to resign from either the dealership or the elected office.
Finding no illegality in the cancellation of his authorization, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: K.G. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8338 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 148
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that authorities cannot issue a notice directing removal of constructions without first issuing a show cause notice and affording the affected person an opportunity of hearing.
Observing that not issuing notice is contrary to the principles of natural justice, the Court set aside the impugned notice while leaving it open to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Case Title: V. Seenaiah v. Nellore Sudhakar & Ors.
Case No.: Contempt Appeal No. 4 of 2025
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 149
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that formal service of a court order is not a prerequisite for holding a person guilty of civil contempt if it is established that the person had knowledge of the order and willfully disobeyed it.
Dismissing a contempt appeal filed by a Gram Panchayat Secretary, the Court upheld the order of a Single Judge holding him guilty of contempt for violating a status quo order by demolishing part of the writ petitioners' property before the expiry of the time granted to them to submit their explanation.
Case Title: M. Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6133 of 2026
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 150
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the termination of a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer, holding that the dealer was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainants and was not furnished with the material relied upon.
It accordingly set aside the termination order and remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for a fresh enquiry, strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the authority to furnish all relied-upon material to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity of hearing, including the right to cross-examine the complainants if sought.
Case Title: T. Gevanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 4775 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 151
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNSS does not require an accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate as a condition for availing anticipatory bail.
While modifying the Sessions Court's direction requiring the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate within seven days, the Court observed that an anticipatory bail order must provide for the accused's release in the event of arrest and cannot make such relief conditional upon surrender before a Magistrate.
Case Title: Shaik Shahina & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 655 of 2026
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 152
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a POCSO Special Court cannot frame charges without first affording the accused an effective opportunity of hearing on the question of discharge as contemplated under Sections 250 and 251 BNSS.
Clarifying that the POCSO Act's mandate for expeditious trials does not override the accused's statutory right to seek discharge, the Court observed that under Section 251(1) BNSS, charges can be framed only after the accused is heard on discharge under Section 250 BNSS.
Case Title: Mathi Venkata Lakshmi & Anr. v. Pushadapu Sambasiva Rao & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 1954 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 153
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of its averments, it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 153]
Dismissing a challenge to the refusal to reject a plaint in a partition suit, the Court held that the plaintiff's earlier plea of oral partition in previous litigation did not, by itself, justify rejection of the plaint, and that the defendants' defence cannot be considered while deciding such an application.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint in a partition suit.