Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 144Telangana High Court Directs Cyberabad Police To Issue Advisory To Gated Communities, Flat Associations For Preventing Illegal ActivitiesCh Hari Govinda Khorana Reddy vs. State of Telangana and Others 2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 1 Justice B Vijaysen Reddy in his December 31 order passed a slew of directions while hearing a writ...
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 144
Ch Hari Govinda Khorana Reddy vs. State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 1
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy in his December 31 order passed a slew of directions while hearing a writ petition filed by a lawyer–who is a resident of Indu fortune Villa (Gated community) with a prayer to direct the concerned police officials to act on his complaint and stop alleged illegal activities taking place in the Clubhouse of the Gated Community.
Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against BRS MLA KT Rama Rao In Formula E Race "Scam" Case
KT Rama Rao v/s State of Telangana (ACB)
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 2
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday (January 7) refused to quash the FIR lodged against BRS MLA KT Rama Rao over alleged irregularities in the conduct of Formula-E race in Hyderabad when BRS was in power. After hearing the matter for some time Justice K Lakshman refused to quash the FIR against Rao
KT Rama Rao v/s State of Telangana (ACB) and Anr.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 3
Dismissing BRS MLA KT Rama Rao's plea for quashing an FIR over the alleged Formula-E race "scam", the Telangana High Court on Tuesday said that Rao as then Urban Development Minister was controlling the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and thus the body's funds which were allegedly misused, were "prima facie" entrusted with him.
KT Rama Rao v State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 4
Telangana High Court on Wednesday (January 8) permitted BRS MLA KT Rama Rao's lawyer to be present in the library room in the Anti Corruption Bureau's office–stated to be opposite to the examination room where Rao will to be interrogated in the FormulaE Race case on Thursday, so that his lawyer can observe the proceedings.
Justice K Lakshman while dictating the order clarified that having a lawyer present during interrogation is not a matter of right. However in view of the status of the petitioner, the court permitted his lawyer to sit in the library which has a glass window and is opposite to the examination room.
M/s.Brunda Infra Pvt. Limited and Others. vs. The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 5
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of two 2023 notifications, issued by the GST Department post COVID-19 pandemic, for extending the limitation period prescribed for issuing notices under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
A division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani also upheld a notification issued in 2022 for similar purpose. In doing so, it observed,
“In the manner statute i.e., Section 168A is worded, there is no cavil of doubt that the Law makers intended to give it a broader umbrella to bring within its shadow, such actions which could not be completed or complied with, due to force majeure…The COVID-19 Pandemic created extraordinary difficulties which could not have been anticipated, measured and solved with mathematical precision. Thus, hair-splitting in many aspects must be eschewed…While dealing with such an extraordinary crisis, Government's action must be viewed in a broad perspective.”
Gowripaga Albert Lael and two others vs. Joseph D'Souza & 11 ors
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 6
Dismissing a plea by former employees of certain public trusts/charities– some of whom are stated to be engaged in imparting education and religious teachings– alleging misappropriation of funds, the Telangana High Court reiterated that inculcating religious feelings among members of a particular community cannot be equated to public function or discharge of a public duty.
The court further reiterated that even imparting education, per se, will not pull the respondent trusts/charities within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution unless it can be shown that they discharge a public duty which has a public law element.
TRR Institute of Medical Sciences and others vs. Union of India and batch
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 7
Upholding an order of Medical Assessment and Rating Board for shifting students from two medical colleges to other institutes as the former did not meet the required standards, the Telangana High Court said that the National Medical Commission Act grants the board the power to transfer students from one institute to another.
The court was hearing a batch of several petitions–moved by two medical colleges as well as various students, challenging the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) decision which withdrew the permission granted to the institutions for admission of students. The pleas also questioned the validity of the action of the official respondents in shifting the students to other medical colleges in the State and had sought a direction that the students be shifted back to the two institutes.
Jadhav Gopal vs. State of AP.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 8
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that oral claims of compliance by the Investigating Officer cannot substitute for the mandatory statutory requirement.
Reiterating the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja and State of Gujarat v. Jagraj Singh, the Court has held that recovery under the NDPS Act should be made in strict compliance of the established procedure, and lapses render the recovery doubtful.
Satish Kamaal vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 9
The Telangana High Court in an interim order on Friday (January 10) directed the State Government to review its decision which permitted an increased fare for tickets to the screening of the Ram Charan starrer 'Game-Changer'.
During the hearing court also orally criticised the State government for permitting the screening of the movie at 4 am, remarking that "People should sleep at 4am not go to the movies".
X v/s Y
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 10
The Telangana high court on Wednesday (January 8) reiterated that if a parent who is lawful guardian of the child, takes a child away from the custody of the other parent, it would not amount to kidnapping and does not call for registering an FIR under 137(2) of the BNS.
Section 137(2) BNS states that whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
S Mathura Prasad And Sons vs The Union Of India and others
2025 LiveLive (Tel) 11
Telangana High Court has said that social media complaints cannot be viewed as lacking gravity as opposed to formal written complaints, adding that complaints/customer feedback on social media is a well accepted form of complaint registration and an ostrich stance cannot be adopted to not view such complaints seriously.
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya in her order said, "The complaints on social media cannot be seen as lacking in gravity as opposed to formal written complaints. Complaints/customer feedback on social media is an accepted mode of registering complaints against a service provider and the petitioner cannot adopt an ostrich policy in today's time on the pretext that social media complaints do not deserve to be treated with seriousness."
Telangana High Court Closes 66-Years Old Land Dispute On 'Non-Existent Properties'
Sahebzadi Sultan Jahan Begum vs. Nawab Zahir Yar Jung Bahadur
2025 LiveLive (Tel) 12
The Telangana High Court recently put an end to a long pending dispute regarding the Asman Jahi Estate–belonging to a noble family from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad–after noting that the litigation in respect of non-existent properties had gone on 66 years.
For context, the estate concerns the House of Paigah, a noble family belonging to the State of Hyderabad. Notably, Asman Jahi also served as Prime Minister of Hyderabad from 1887 to 1894.
Hajera Bibi and Another vs State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLive (Tel) 13
The Telangana High Court has asked the State to get instructions on a Rohingya refugee woman's plea against the deportation process initiated against her and her 17-year-old son as well as their "on and off detention" without following due process of law.
The petitioners have also sought a direction to the respondents–which includes the State, Director General of Police Telangana, Police Commissioner Hyderabad, Central Investigating Department and Station House Officer Bahadurpura police station–to consider their case for a Long-Term Visa in accordance with the internal guidelines.
Aarthi Reddy Kaipa vs. State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLive (Tel) 14
The Telangana High Court has issued notice on a second-year female student of BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus challenging her rustication by the college as illegal and against the UGC (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees & Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2015.
The petitioner has claimed that her rustication also violates of her rights under Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has claimed that the Internal Complaints Committee of the institution had recommended her rustication after inquiring into certain complaints by students containing allegations of sexual harassment and her involvement in it.
Boyenepally Srijayavardhan vs. Smt. V. Nirupama Reddy.
2025 LiveLive (Tel) 16
The Telangana High Court has held that when enforcement of a contract is sought under section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, the claimant needs to establish a concentric circle of relationships with the contracting parties to the contract.
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini in an Appeal Suit challenging the dismissal of a suit for specific performance and cancellation of a compromise decree. The Bench reiterated that only parties to a contract or persons claiming rights from parties to a contract can seek specific performance and under no circumstance can the court compel a third party to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against the third party.
Telangana High Court Permits BRS To Hold 'Peaceful' Rythu Maha Dharna–Farmer's Protest On January 28
Bhonagiri Devender vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLive (Tel) 16
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (January 22) granted Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) to organize a "peaceful protest meeting"–Rythu Maha Dharna (farmer's prorest) at the Clock Tower in Nalgonda on January 28 for four hours, limiting it to 1500 people.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy in his order said, “ln the circumstances, there shall be interim direction to the respondent No.3 (Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nalgonda District) to permit the petitioner to organize peaceful protest meeting (Dharna) at Marriguda Bypass Road to Clock Tower on 28.01.2025 between 11 AM and 2 PM with 1500 people. The petitioner shall ensure that persons with criminal antecedents do not take part in the peaceful protest; no provocative statements/slogans are raised in the meeting; no breach of peace and public tranquility is caused and no inconvenience is caused to the general public. However, if there is any break down of law and order, the police are at liberty to take action in accordance with law".
Telangana Private Junior College Management Association vs. State of Telangana and Another
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 17
While hearing an association's plea against imposition of "exorbitant penalties" on its colleges operating in mixed occupancy buildings for academic year 2024-2025, the Telangana High Court directed the State Intermediate Education Board (TGBIE) to accept the examination fee of students without insisting on payment of late fee Rs. 2,500.
This the court said would be subject to the condition that the "penalties imposed and normal examination fee" is paid on or before January 25 by each of the petitioner's member colleges.
Satish Kamaal vs. State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary Home & ors.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 18
The Telangana High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department to consult all the necessary stakeholders and take a decision with regard to the instructions that need to be issued to regulate the entry of children (below 16) into theatres/multiplexes after 11 pm.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy who was hearing the matter passed an interim direction restricting the entry of children below the age of 16 years into movie theatres after 11 pm.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 19
The Telangana High Court has disposed of a PIL challenging the non-extension of the Indiramma Housing Scheme to landless poor residing in 129 municipalities, on par with residents of villages.
As per the Indiramma Atmiya Bharosa Welfare Scheme, the State government has decided to extend assistance to agriculturists who do not own land in the rural areas. The contention of the petitioner was that the Scheme ought to have been extended to the landless agriculturists who live within the municipal jurisdiction.
Sri V.V.V.N.S.S.Prasad vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 20
Setting aside the conviction of a junior engineer who allegedly sought a bribe for clearing the pending bills of a contractor, the Telangana High Court reiterated that mere recovery of illegal gratification would not be sufficient to convict an individual or prove the charges in the absence of any proof of such demand.
As per the facts, the petitioner had allegedly insisted on paying a bribe amount of rupees Rs. 50,000 for clearing the pending bills. Thereafter when trap proceedings were set and the tainted money was recovered from the drawer of the accused his hands had tested positive for the trap paint.
B.Balkishan vs. The State ACB, CIU Range AND The State rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, CIU Range vs Shaik Waheeduddin
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 21
Setting aside the conviction of an assistant engineer under Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a bribe to extend the benefit of a State-sanctioned housing scheme to certain individuals, the Telangana High Court said that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer demanded a bribe.
Referring to judgments on the Supreme Court the court further said that the prosecution cannot rely on recovery of the amount allegedly sought as a bribe by the accused to infer demand.
Maloth Ravi, S/o. Chandru vs. The State of Telangana.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 22
While setting aside a man's conviction for murder of his wife, cruelty and for demanding dowry the Telangana High Court directed a "fresh de novo trial" after noting that the accused was not properly represented by a counsel before the trial court underscoring that he was "deprived of an effective defence".
A division bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao passed the order in a criminal appeal challenging the order of conviction for offences under IPC Sections 302(murder), 498A (cruelty) and demand of dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment as well.
A.R. Vilasitha vs State of Telangana.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 23
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a judicial officer (Junior Civil Judge) challenging her dismissal order that was issued in 2019.
The petitioner had approached the court contending that although her dismissal order was passed in 2019, she could not approach the court at an earlier date due to her non-cooperative counsel. She also contended that the worldwide lockdown caused due to the Covid pandemic made it impossible for her to approach the court in a timely manner. Thus, she prayed that her dismissal order which was illegal and arbitrary be set aside.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 24
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that the remedy of Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary remedy available to safeguard against disappearances or illegal detention. That, it should not be used as a weapon to settle marital scores or to win a custody battle.
"A Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be issued when a detention or imprisonment is without authority of law i.e., when the person is under illegal detention. With the expansion of the scope of Habeas Corpus, the Writ is often used against a spouse who has been illegally detained by his/her parents or in cases of custody of a child. In such cases, the Court must come to the conclusion that the person is under detention without authority of law."
Gandala Laxman vs the State of TS and Batch.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 25
The Telangana High Court has recently reduced the sentence of a few of the accused of an unlawful assembly who were convicted of an offense under section 302 of the IPC. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the 'common object' amongst the mob and in such a situation, each individual is liable for their own actions.
“It cannot be said that all the accused gathered with the common object of killing the deceased. Several villagers, other than the appellants have attacked the vehicles and other officers. In the said situation, when it was accused No.1, who had attacked the deceased with an axe, the common object of all the appellants cannot be inferred. The appellants, other than accused Nos.1 and 2, were convicted on the basis of recoveries effected at their instance. None of the witnesses attributed any specific overt-acts to other appellants apart from accused Nos.1 and 2”
Srinivasula Varalaxmi vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 26
While dealing with a criminal appeal filed under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Telangana High Court has reiterated that a co-accused cannot be found guilty on mere suspicion and/or assumption when complicity is not proved.
In the case at hand, both accused (A1 and A2) were traveling together to Bangkok. However, when their check-in luggage was inspected by the Customs officials on an anonymous tip, it was found that their bags had a false bottom, and when separated, the concealed compartment contained a black color polythene bag with white crystalline powder in it. Upon questioning, the accused revealed that the substance was ketamine.
Srinivas Byreddy vs State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 27
While hearing a PIL challenging the actions of Osmania General Hospital for allegedly refusing to treat a patient who failed to produce her Aadhaar card, the Telangana High Court on Monday (February 24) orally questioned the state as to how this was permissible.
During the hearing the counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted before a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara that the patient was a homeless lady who used to beg as a means to provide for her 6 year old daughter. That due to illness, when she approached the respondent Hospital, she was refused treatment on account of not having an Aadhaar card.
Rizvana Begum W/o M.A.Quadeer VS. The Principal Secretary
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 28
The Telangana High Court has s that the entitlement to receive compensation under the Land Acquisition Act would crystallize only after the competent court–to whom a reference is made over a dispute as to the apportionment of compensation–decides the rival claims and rules in the claimant's favour.
The high court referred to the court's decision in a 2024 writ petition wherein it had referred to Supreme Court's decision in Madan and another v/ s. State of Maharashtra (2014) in which the apex court had said that "the right to receive compensation under the award would crystallize after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant". The Supreme Court had further said that it is only thereafter that a reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is assed either by the Court in the reference under Section 30 of in the civil suit, as maybe.
T Harish Rao v. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 29
The Telangana High Court has reserved its verdict on the petition filed by State's former Minister of Medical Health and Finance and current Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLA T. Harish Rao, seeking quashment of FIR registered against him in connection with the alleged 'Phone Tapping' case.
In an order passed on 19th February, Justice K. Lakshman had restrained the investigating authorities from proceeding further in the matter till March 03, owing to submission made by Harish's counsel that individuals were being arrested and coerced into giving confessions against the Petitioners.
M/s Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The State of Telangana and others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 30
The Telangana High Court stated that the show cause notices and the orders which are not pregnant with the signature of the Proper Officer cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara observed that “since Rule and prescribed Forms mandate requirement of signature of Proper Officer, its violation makes the notice/order vulnerable. Any contrary view taken by Court about DRC-07 having no signature without considering the above rule and prescribed Form must be held as per incuriam.”
Satish Kamaal vs. State of TS.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 31
The Telangana High Court has rescinded its order restricting children below the age of 16 years from entering movie theatres after 11pm.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy observed that Multiplex operators, whose interest is stated to be adversely affected due to the direction, should be given an opportunity of hearing.
Jillela, Kotha Venkat Reddy vs. State of AP
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 32
The Telangana High Court has said that when a doctor who has conducted and filed a post-mortem certificate/report cannot be examined due to unavailability or death, the report given by him is to be treated as relevant and admissible in view of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court further said that it was well established that when the doctor who conducted autopsy was not available and some other doctor who knows and identifies the handwriting and signature of the doctor who conducted autopsy, then it can be said that the postmortem examination is proved.
A. Rajaram Reddy vs. Additional Collector/ PIC Chairman Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 33
Reiterating that a punishment which is not provided in rules can't be imposed, the Telangana High Court set aside punishment of 'dies-non and no salary/ remuneration' resulting in non payment of back wages imposed on a physically handicapped co-operative bank employee for the period of time he was out of service.
The court said this after noting that the relevant rules didn't provide for such a punishment.
M/s. Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and others vs, State of TS and Batch
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 34
The Telangana High Court has clarified that show-cause notices issued on the online portal under Chapter XVII of the GST Rules under the category 'demand and recovery' mandatorily need to contain the appropriate officer's digital signature.
The order was passed by the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara in a batch of 160 writ petitions filed by various private entities, challenging the show-cause notice issued on the online portal without a digital signature.
National Union for Migrant Workers vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 35
The Telangana High Court on Monday (March 3) closed proceedings in a PIL petition praying that the State takes all necessary and immediate steps to remove 8 workers who are stated to be trapped in the Srisailam Left Bank Canal (SLBC) Tunnel in Nagarkurnool.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara closed the matter owing to the reassurance given by the Advocate General appearing for the State.
Avula Nagraju vs State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a public interest filed challenging Section 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. Section 21(3) restricts individuals who have more than 2 children from contesting in the Panchayat elections.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara dismissed the petition at SR stage, imposing a cost of 25 thousand, noting that the Supreme Court had already adjudicated upon this matter, finally in the case of Javed v. State of Haryana.
M/s. Corvine Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs. Srinivasulu Kanday
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 37
The Telangana High Court has held that the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act grants a bouquet of protections to a party during the course of arbitral proceedings. It clarified that section 9 (3) restricts a party from seeking interim protection before a Court, once a tribunal has been constituted. After the amendment, once the Tribunal has been constituted, the parties can avail of the protection under section 17 by applying to the Tribunal.
M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd Vs M./s H.B.T GMBH
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 38
The Telangana High Court has reiterated and clarified that suits initiated before Civil Courts to curb arbitration proceedings ignore section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, and deserve to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) as being barred by statute.
The order was passed in a commercial court appeal by a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao.
Kummari Shiva Kumar vs. State of Telangana. and batch
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 39
The Telangana High Court has suspended part of a Notification, issued to acquire land for setting up a Multiple purpose Industrial Park in Vikharabad District after certain land owners moved the court contending that the study for Determination of Social Impact and Public Purpose under the Land Acquisition Act could not be dispensed with.
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao passed the order in two writ petitions where few petitioners were filed challenging the entire notification and others were challenging the issuance of notice to the extent their land.
Vangala Vishnu Priya and others vs. The State of Telangana & Ors.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 40
The Telangana High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh/ Telangana Unaided Non-minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007 and the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, which directed the reservation of 1% seats for children of ex-servicemen and service personnel of three wings of Armed forces and who are domiciled in Telangana, without offering the same to the Central Armed Police Force ('CAPF').
The State Of Telangana vs Ihhr Hospitality Private Limited
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 41
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao has held that an order rejecting jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can only be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration Act after an award is passed, and no writ petition against such an order can be entertained.
Venkata Rami Reddy v. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 42
The Telangana High Court has imposed a fine of Rupees 1 crore on a litigant who had approached the Court, filed vexatious cases and suppressed material facts regarding court orders passed against him.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka noted that the petitioner and his late father had been filing cases since 1989 regarding the same land parcel and had frustrated the government, the legitimate owners of the land.
Vata Foundation ENPO vs. State of TS
2025 LivwLaw (Tel) 43
A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Telangana High Court, challenging a GO issued by Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation to alienate 400 acres of green cover land in Kancha Gachibowli, Serlingampally Mandal for the setting up of IT infrastructure.
The plea alleges the GO to be in contravention of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and prays to cancel all action taken by the State in furtherance of the above-mentioned GO and to declare the land as a 'National Park'.
XXX vs XXX
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 44
The Telangana High Court has held that cohabitation built on deception without proven customary divorce from first wife amounts to rape. A division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao held:
"Under section 5(i) read with section 11 of the 1955 Act, if the husband is already a married man, the subsequent marriage is void ab initio and has no sanctity in law. Since the respondent knew at the material point of time that he had a wife living at the time of entering into physical relations with the appellant and the appellant's consent to such physical relations was premised on her believing that the respondent is her lawfully-wedded husband, the respondent is guilty of the offence punishable under sections 375 and 376 of the IPC and alternatively, under sections 63 and 64 of the BNS."
Vata Foundation ENPO vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 45
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (April 2) has stayed felling of trees on land in Kancha Gachibowli located near Hyderabad Central University campus (HCU), while hearing a plea against a government order stated to be alienating 400 acres of green cover land in the area for setting up IT infrastructure.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara passed the interim order and stated that it will hear the plea on Thursday (April 3) and until then "no coercive steps" will be taken.
Vata Foundation ENPO vs. State of Telangana and batch
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 46
The Telangana High Court on Monday (April 7) deferred till April 24 hearing of various petitions filed with respect to tree felling at State's Kancha Gachibowli forest area near the Hyderabad Central University campus.
At the outset a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was informed that the matter was listed today for response by the State, which has not been filed yet. The bench was dealing with a petition filed by Vata Foundation against a government order stated to be alienating 400 acres of green cover land in the area for setting up IT infrastructure. The court was also hearing another PIL filed by a retired scientist Kalapala Babu Rao seeking similar reliefs, and a plea by Student's Union claiming that the land belongs to the University.
M/s. Andhra Fuels Private Limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
In a case pertaining to the taxation of Natural Gas, the Telangana High Court has held that Natural Gas shall fall under Entry 23 of 6th Schedule, under the category of petroleum gases, and not Entry 118. The different entries change the percentage of tax levied.
Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that “This bench is of the firm opinion that the findings given by the Tribunal holding that the natural gas sold by the petitioner falls under entry 23 of 6th schedule is proper”
V Additional District AND Sessions Judge vs. Asadullah Akhtar , haddi , Tabrez
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 48
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday (April 8) has upheld a 2016 death penalty imposed by an NIA Court upon five Indian Mujahideen operatives, who were found guilty of orchestrating the 2013 Dilsukhnagar twin bomb blasts which killed 18 and injured 121 persons.
A division bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P Sree Sudha passed the order in a reference made by the Sessions Judge to confirm the death penalty as well as on an appeal appeal filed by the accused– Asadullah Akhter Haddi Tabrez Danial Asad, Zia Ur Rehman, Mohd Tahseen Akhtar Hassan, Mohd Ahmed Siddibapa and Ajaz Shaikh Samar Armaan, operatives of the Indian Mujahideen.
L.Venkateshwara Rao vs. The State of AP, through Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Range
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 49
In a case pertaining to challenge of conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Telangana High Court held that any attempt by the prosecution to introduce “further chief examination” after the cross examination to fill lacunae of the evidence is not permitted under the Indian Evidence Act.
Justice K Surender stated that “Under Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, once the chief-examination is complete, the witness can be cross-examined. Thereafter, the examination of a witness subsequent to the cross-examination would be re-examination. The re-examination can only be for the purpose of explaining the matters referred to in the cross-examination. Only in the event of a new matter being introduced by the permission of the Court during re-examination, would the adverse party have the opportunity to further cross-examine the witness.”
Letter dated, 24 -09 -2024 vs. State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 50
The Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) has told the Telangana High Court that it has under taken conservation of not only seven Qutub Shahi Tombs but also 86 individual other monuments, adding that it has not received government funding for conservation of the same.
The submission was made in AKTC's counter affidavit filed in response to a Public Interest Petition taken up by the high court based on a letter addressed by one K. Madhu Yakshi Goud who has alleged that AKTC failed to conserve the Qutub Shahi Tombs despite being allocated 100 crores by the government.
Asadullah Akhter , Haddi , Tabrez , Danial ,Asad and Others v/s State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 51
"When terror bombings strike with calculated ferocity at innocent civilians, the death penalty emerges as the only sanction capable of matching the crime's existential threat," said the Telangana High Court while upholding death penalty imposed on five Indian Mujahideen operatives convicted for orchestrating the 2013 Dilsukhnagar twin bomb blasts which killed 18 and injured 131 persons.
In doing so the court also underscored that the act was a "cold blooded conspiracy", with a "strategic selection of targets to maximize carnage and despair", where lives were extinguished, families were irreparably broken and a pervasive sense of insecurity was etched into the national consciousness.
Perika Srinivas vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 52
A PIL has been filed in the Telangana High Court praying for directions to the Union and State governments that no holidays (whether partial or complete) in the current year or future years would be declared only for adherents of a particular religion.
The matter was taken by the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara at the filing stage, who addressed the petitioner's counsel verbally and said that the matter would be considered.
MS Cipher Oncology Private Limited vs M S Unimed Health Care Private Limited
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 53
The Telangana High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul has held that unless a proper notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), suggesting the name of the proposed arbitrator, is sent to the other party, the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. Merely demanding outstanding payment without proposing the name of an arbitrator cannot be construed as a valid invocation of the arbitration clause for the purposes of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act.
Smt Somuri Ravali Versus Somuri Purnachandra Rao
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 54
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao has held that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) in a domestic arbitration, the mandate of the arbitrator can be extended by the High Court only under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act and not by any other courts inferior to the High Court.
Thandava Yogesh vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
The Telangana High Court has directed the state's Education Department to file an affidavit, showing that it is complying with Right to Education Act and providing mandatory 25% reservation for students belonging to disadvantaged and weaker sections in private unaided schools and special category schools for 2025-2026 academic year.
For context, Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act mandates that a school–specified in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 2(n) i.e., those belonging to specified category and an unaided school–shall admit in class I, to the extent of at least twenty-five per cent of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary education till its completion. The section applies to special category schools and private unaided schools.
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Others vs. Mohammad Taher Khan
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
The Telangana High Court has directed its Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a police complaint for enquiring into alleged forgery of certain high court orders including a 37-year-old order which is stated to have been relied upon in various collateral proceedings in connection with a land dispute.
It further directed the State Government constitute a Special Team to investigate into the proposed complaint which the court directed its Registrar to lodge, along with two earlier complaints registered in 2024 with Charminar police station so that further course of action can be taken in the matter.
Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao vs State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 57
The Telangana High Court on Monday (April 21) quashed an FIR lodged against BRS leader Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao, alleging that on his behest last year two co-accused along with social media persons, forcibly entered Medigadda Barrage–stated to be an important project–flew drones over the area without permission, threatening the same.
For context, the Medigadda Barrage also known as Lakshmi Barrage is stated to be the starting point of the Kaleshwaram Project, an irrigation project on the Godavari river. It was alleged that despite the Medigadda Barrage which was included in the 'Yellow Zone' and in the Digistal Sky Platform, the two co-accused on the behest of A1 (KT Rama Rao) forcibly entered the site, pushing away the police personnel, recorded drone videos and released them on the internet.
Telangana High Court Quashes FIR Against BRS Leader KT Rama Rao In Defamation Case By Congress Party
KTR vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 58
The Telangana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BRS Party President Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao, which was registered against him in the month of September, 2024 on the ground that a speech made by him defamed the Congress Party.
The complaint was filed by Athram Suguna, a Congress Leader from Adilabad in the Utnoor Mandal and the FIR was registered under sections 352 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 353 (: Statements conducing to public mischief), 356 (2) (defamation) of the BNS and further, sections 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 353(1) (b), 356(1), 171 (undue influence at elections), 174 and 175 (giving flase statements in connection with elections) of the BNS Act were added by way of a memo.
X vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
The Telangana High Court has reiterated when determining whether a child-in-conflict with law should be tried as an adult, the Children's Court/Sessions Court cannot brush aside its duty of independent assessment by simply relying on the assessment report by the Board under Section 15 of the Act.
The court underscored that the children's court has the "mandatory duty to make an independent assessment" about the necessity of trying the child as an adult.
Padi Kaushik Reddy Vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 60
The Telangana High Court has directed the State not to take coercive action against BRS Party MLA Kaushik Reddy, on allegations of demanding a bribe of ₹50 lakhs from the husband of the de facto complainant for running an illegal mining quarry.
The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman, who noted that the police had registered an FIR without conducting a preliminary investigation and without obtaining any phone data.
T. Prabhakar Rao v/s State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 61
Arguing his anticipatory bail plea in an alleged case of phone tapping of politicians and high court judges in the previous government led by BRS, former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao told the Telangana High Court on Friday (April 25) that the prosecution lodged against him is malicious.
He has also moved an interim application seeking interim protection from arrest. The former IPS officer further said that there is not even a semblance of evidence against him and the prosecution must show that he ordered the interception of phones and other devices and also ordered its destruction.
Act Pubiic Welfare Foundation v/s Union of India and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 62
A PIL has been filed in the Telangana High Court challenging the enforcement and operationalisation of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 in the State, calling it a 'systemic' injury to religious, constitutional and property rights of the Muslim community.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara on Friday (April 25) adjourned the plea after noting the pendency of a similar matter before the Supreme Court.
NCC Power Projects Limited vs. M/s. Elecon EPC Projects Limited
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 63
Observing that self-induced frustration of a contract would also amount to its breach, the Telangana High Court underscored that the promisor is obligated to communicate to the promisee on closure of contract at the relevant time being privy to it, and a non-disclosure amounts to disablement of performance under Section 39 of Contract Act.
A division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao in its order said:
“Breach of contractual obligations can assume various forms. Disabling another party from performing his/her contractual obligations or disabling oneself from performing, would also amount to breach. In other words, self-induced frustration of a contract would also amount to breach. The appellant's failure to inform the respondent of shortclosure of the contract at the relevant time, despite being privy to the same, amounts to disablement of performance as contemplated under section 39 of the 1872 Act. In other words, once the contract between the GPL and the appellant was closed on 26.10.2013, the appellant as the promisor, had an obligation to communicate this fact to the respondent, namely, that the appellant was disabled from performing its promise in its entirety.”
T. Prabhakar Rao v/s State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 64
Opposing anticipatory bail plea of former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao in an alleged case of phone tapping of politicians and high court judges in the previous government led by BRS, Telangana police told the High Court on Tuesday that Rao was the mastermind behind the alleged illegal surveillance.
During the hearing senior advocate Sidharth Luthra appearing for the State submitted before Justice J Sreenivas Rao, "This man is the mastermind. He is the man who is the head of the agency who carries this out. Absolutely illegal. Appointed as Chief of Bureau Operations when he was healthy hale and hearty, constituted to curb left wing extremism. After his retirement he is appointed as a designated authority for purpose of issuing emergent orders. He is constitutes a special operations team (SOT) which is working...it is carrying out surveillance on people from all limbs of government. Whether be it political leaders, journalists, functionaries of every institution. Collection of personal data, interception of phone calls, monitoring location. None of this has anything to curbing leftwing extremism. Leaders of mainstream political parties cannot be roped in".
M S NCC Limited vs M S Elecon Epc Projects Limited
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 65
The Telangana High Court bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R.Madhusudhan Rao has held that loss of profit incurred by a party due to the other party's suppression of material facts regarding the termination of the contract, where the former continued to render services under a mistaken belief, can be reasonably compensated by applying the Hudson formula.
T. Prabhakar Rao v/s State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 66
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (April 30) reserved its verdict on an anticipatory bail plea moved by former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao in an alleged case of phone tapping of politicians and high court judges in the previous government led by BRS.
After hearing all the parties, Justice J Sreenivas Rao said, "Heard both sides. For orders and judgments".
Senior advocate T Niranjan Reddy appearing for the petitioner had argued that prosecution lodged against him is malicious. It was further said that there is not even a semblance of evidence against him and the prosecution must show that he ordered the interception of phones and other devices and also ordered its destruction. Pointing to the Telegraph Act and the relevant rules he submitted that there is a review committee which includes the state's chief secretary and law secretary. He further said that destruction is "permissible under statute", it has to be done because of there being sensitive information that may have been gathered against terrorists other persons needs to be deleted. But which items are to be continued and which are to be destructed is the discretion of the review committee, he said.
Syed Ayub vs State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 67
A division bench of the Telangana High Court has set aside the order passed by a Single Judge, directing a re-trial of an accused, who was acquitted of murder charges without there being any challenge to the acquittal order.
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao passed the order in a criminal appeal, challenging the order passed by the District and Sessions Court, which sentenced the appellant to life for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and 6 months for the offence punishable under section 379 of the IPC.
T. Prabhakar Rao v/s State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 68
The Telangana High Court on Friday (May 2) dismissed the anticipatory bail plea moved by former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao in an alleged case of phone tapping of politicians and high court judges in the previous government led by BRS.
Justice J Sreenivas Rao while pronouncing the order said, "Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed. IA filed seeking interim protection is also dismissed".
Colonel Rishi Sharma vs. The State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
In a case pertaining to the alleged rape of a woman, the Telangana High Court has acquitted the appellant and criticised the investigative process citing procedural lapses and failure to maintain evidentiary standards, especially concerning scientific evidences.
The bench comprising of Justices P.Sam Koshy and N. Tukaramji stated that there was negligent handling of medical evidence from the stage of collection, and so drawing conclusions regarding the culpability cannot be done.
X v/s State of Telangana & Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 70
The Telangana High Court has temporarily suspended an order rusticating a second-year female student of BITS Pilani, after noting that it was passed without following the provisions of the UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational lnstitutions) Regulations, 2015.
For context, Regulation 8 mandates that a copy of the complaint should be furnished on the accused individual and they should be given 10 days to reply to the allegations.
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority vs. Cyberabad Expressway Limited.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 71
The Telangana High Court has clarified that section 47 of the CPC, which permits objections to be raised in an execution petition before the Trial Court; cannot be used as an alternative to challenge an arbitration award, which is being executed before a Trial Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, while passing the order made it clear that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a Code in itself and lays down a mechanism to challenge an award under section 37, by way of an appeal.
Danieli India Limited vs Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited
2025 LiveLive (Tel) 72
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K Lakshman has held that even if the designated arbitral institution named in the arbitration agreement no longer exists, the Court can still appoint a new arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) provided the intention to arbitrate is clearly evident from the arbitration clause.
M/s GRN Constructions Private Limited vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 73
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that in a scenario where the referral court can discern the frivolity of the dispute from the bare minimum pleadings, it would be incorrect to presume that the arbitral tribunal, equipped to undertake a detailed examination of the pleadings and evidence, would be unable to reach the same conclusion. Therefore, it is better that the plea of limitation should be left to be decided by the Arbitrator.
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. v. M/s. Sri Gowri Shankar Cable Industries
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji have held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to proceedings initiated under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. The Court clarified that the overriding effect under Section 10 of the 1993 Act applies only to the express provisions of that Act and does not exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act in the absence of any express limitation provision under the 1993 Act or the MSMED Act, 2006
Thunga Mallesh @ Mallaiah vs. The State of Telangana,
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 75
The Telangana High Court dismissed a case registered against a private teacher for playing a card game involving betting under the state Gaming Act 2017, after noting that the alleged act did not take place on a public street as required under the provisions of the act.
Under Section 9(1) of the TS Gaming Act, whoever is found gaming or reasonably suspected to be gaming in any public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have, or are permitted to have access shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs 5000 or with both.
M/s. Modi Builders & Realtors (P) Ltd. and Others v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-16 (2), Hyderabad, and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 76
The Telangana High Court stated that open terrace/portico excluded while computing build-up area for determining eligibility for deduction under section 80-IB of Income Tax Act.
The Bench consists of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda was addressing the issue of whether the terrace / balcony that is in the form of open to sky or portico / porch area without walls could be added while computing the built-up area for the purpose of determining the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Spunklane Media Private Limited and others vs Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited and others and Batch
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
Telangana High Court quashed a 2022 ex-parte interim order passed by a local court, restraining various entities including Bengaluru based online news platform 'The News Minutes', from publishing content on the alleged involvement of Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd in clearing bills for the wedding of a senior IAS officer's daughter.
The court passed the order in appeals filed by three entities–an e-paper 'Tolivelugu' and its Editor, Spunklane Media Private Limited which runs 'The News Minute' and Telugu News Channel 'V6 Velugu' which is run by VIL Media Private Limited.
Kalimera Anand Kumar vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 78
The Telangana High Court has granted bail to the Former Tourism and Infrastructure Minister of Karnataka, Gali Janardhan Reddy, serving as an MLA in connection with the Obulapuram Mining scam.
Reddy, the Director of Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd Bellary, along with other accused, had been convicted for 7 years by the CBI court for illegal mining in the Bellary Forest and on accusations of defrauding the government by under-invoicing and tax evasion, suspected to be close to 86 crores.
Telangana High Court Stays Defamation Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over Alleged Comments On BJP
Revanth Reddy vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
The Telangana High Court has stayed proceedings before the trial Court, initiated against the Chief Minister of the State A. Revanth Reddy, for statements given on 4th May in a Public Meeting called the "Jana Jatara Sabha".
Justice K. Lakshman passed the Order in a Criminal Petition, initiated by the Chief Minister, praying to quash the case against him, lodged under section 499 of the IPC and 125 of the Representation of People Act.
M/S Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mr. Sahil Khan
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 80
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that a substitute arbitrator must generally be appointed in the same mode and manner as the original arbitrator. When the appointment of an earlier arbitrator was done under a defective arbitration clause or an unlawful procedure was followed, in such cases a proper recourse is to seek appointment of a new arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ch. Punyamurthy vs Union of India
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 81
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K Lakshman has held that mere passage of time does not bar arbitration if the arbitration clause remains valid. The Limitation for the purpose of filing the application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act commences from the date when request for initiating arbitration is rejected.
Nandu Lal Agarwal vs. Kunamneni Sambasiva Rao
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 82
The Telangana High Court has upheld the election of CPI's Kunamneni Sambasiva Rao in 2023, as MLA from the Kothagudem Assembly Constituency, which was challenged on the ground that he failed to disclose his wife's name in Form 26 Affidavit.
Justice K Lakshman thus dismissed the Election Petition filed by a resident by relying on Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) where it was held that mere non-disclosure of name of the spouse would not render the application of candidate nugatory, if all other necessary information of the spouse such as PAN number, assets, etc are disclosed.
M/S V.K.A. Constructions vs The State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 83
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that the question of whether a particular contract is a works contract or not is for the MSME Council to decide, and the dispute cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction.
Urbanwoods Realty LLP vs Mrs. Uma Rastogi & Another
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 84
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that in case of interconnected agreements, where the mother agreement clearly and unequivocally refers the disputes to arbitration, mere use of 'may' in the arbitration clause of one of the ancillary agreements will not defeat the intention to arbitrate.
M/s Excel Constructions vs M/s Bharat Biotech International Ltd
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 85
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Raohas has held that the award holder can be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the award debtor in pursuance of stay on the execution of the award. The award holder cannot be prohibited from withdrawing the amount only on the ground that the award debtor may succeed in the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
PCL Intertech Lenhydro Consortium vs Punjab National Bank
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 86
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar has held that when the mandate of an arbitrator terminates under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, a substitute arbitrator must be appointed in accordance with the original procedure agreed upon by the parties. In such cases, the court cannot appoint a new arbitrator under Section 11, as the appropriate course is to appoint a substitute following the mechanism under Section 15(2), not initiate a fresh appointment process.
Dharavath Laxmi vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 87
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that the repeated illegal sale of spurious liquor, classified as 'unfit for human consumption' is a valid ground for passing an order of preventive detention, owing to the last prong of section 2(a) of the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986.
The last prong of section 2(a) of the 1986 Act clarifies that 'public order' should be deemed as anything that has the potential to cause widespread danger to life or public health.
Syed Ahmed vs. State of Telangana & Anr
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 88
The Telangana High Court has issued notice to the State on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana Advocates' Clerks Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act 2025.
The plea specifically challenges section 12(2) of the amended Act, which has increased the cost of filing Vakalatnama for engaging an Advocate from Rs. 100 to Rs. 250.
XXX vs. XXX
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 89
The Telangana High Court has recently held that the right of a Muslim woman to demand Khula i.e. divorce is an absolute right and is not predicated on the husband's acceptance of this demand.
A division bench of Justice Moshumi Bhattacharya and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao in its order said:
"Since the wife's right to demand Khula is absolute and does not have to be predicated on a cause or acceptance of the demand by the husband, the only role of a Court of law is to put a judicial stamp on the termination of the marriage, which then becomes binding on both parties"
Dr. S. Abhilash vs Prasanth Busareddy
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 90
The Telangana High Court bench of Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy and Sri Justice N. Tukaramji has held that when a party, in its reply to a Section 8 petition under the Arbitration Act, has expressly denied the existence or validity of the agreements containing the arbitration clause by terming them null and void, such agreements cannot subsequently be relied upon by the same party as the basis to seek reference of the disputes to arbitration.
Koti Raghunatha Rao v. The State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 91
The Telangana High Court has struck down the State Government's decision to allot a land of significant market value in Hyderabad, free of cost, to the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC).
The IAMC was set up by the then CJI NV Ramana in 2021.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K. Sujana observed,
“…matters involving allotment and distribution of state largesse cannot be done free of cost. Governments shall ensure that they are adequately compensated for parting with natural resources vested in them and held by them in public trust. Unless the purpose of allotment is greater and such allotment is to an institution or person who earns no profit, free allotment of government largesse cannot be justified.”
St Frosso Shipping Corporation Petitioner Versus M/s Eastern Multitrans Logistics Pvt Ltd
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 92
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya has held that an arbitrator appointed by one party in accordance with the agreed terms, after giving due notice, cannot be challenged as a unilateral appointment if the other party was given a full and fair opportunity to nominate its arbitrator but chose not to act. In such a situation, enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Clawrance Fransis vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 93
Permitting a rape convict to undergo a second DNA test, the Telangana High Court said that a conviction does not extinguish an accused/convict's continuing right to defend themselves and present best possible evidence to prove their innocence, when there is a doubt on veracity of crucial evidence like a DNA report.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao in an application filed in an appeal challenging the 80-year-old man's POCSO conviction.
Surrender Of Passport Can't Be Imposed As Bail Condition In Bailable Offences: Telangana High Court
Shri Ali Ubais v. The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 94
The Telangana High Court has held that in view of Section 436 of CrPC, a person booked for bailable offence cannot be asked to surrender their passport as a condition to grant them bail.
For reference, Section 436(1) of CrPC stipulates that a person accused of a bailable offence shall be enlarged on bail if he is arrested or detained without any warrant and is prepared to furnish bail.
Telangana High Court Quashes 2019 SC/ST Act Case Against CM Revanth Reddy
A.Revanth Reddy vs. State Of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
The Telangana High Court on Thursday (July 17) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 2016, for allegedly commissioning vandalism at a SC community society which eventually lead to caste-based abuses.
The FIR was registered back in 2019 under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 r/w 198, 120-b of the IPC and Sections (3)(1)(f)(g)(r) & (s) (va) of the SC/ST Act.
Shujahat Hussain v. Sidra Hussain Shujahat
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 96
The Telangana High Court Division Bench, comprising of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao has observed that the Court's power to preserve its magnanimity by ensuring compliance of its order is not a self-serving mechanism but to instill public confidence in the proper administration of justice.
The rationale behind the contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity of the Court of law, since the image of the Court in the mind of the people cannot be tainted, the court said.
M/s. Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. Mark Raj Kumar
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 97
The Telangana High Court Division Bench, comprising Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, observed that the Commercial Courts Act 2015 is an entity-neutral statute in terms of the limitation period. The Commercial Courts Act 2015 is in place to ensure the speedy resolution of high-stakes commercial disputes.
KARAN SAJNANI vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 98
The Telangana High Court has discharged a student of alleged offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 25 prescribes the penalty for manufacturing, selling, transferring, converting, repairing, testing or possessing any firearm or ammunition.
The petitioner/accused was caught at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport at Hyderabad, having in his possession live ammunition. According to him, a friend of his had given him the ammunition for the purpose of making a necklace.
S.Siddharth vs. The State of Telangana,
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 99
The Telangana High Court last month quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Tamil, Telugu, and Hindi language films Actor Siddharth who was accused of making sexist and derogatory remarks against badminton player Saina Nehwal on Twitter in January 2022.
Allowing the petition filed by the accused-petitioner (S. Siddharth) under Section 482 CrPC, a bench of Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed that the essential ingredients required to constitute offences under Section 67 IT Act and Section 509 IPC were not made out against the petitioner.
A. Revanth Reddy vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 100
The Telangana High Court has set aside a Criminal case that was filed against C.M. Revanth Reddy, based on a complaint filed by Bhartiya Janta Party (Telangana) General Secretary, Karam Venkateshwarlau, alleging that Reddy had given a speech which defamed the BJP.
Justice K. Lakshman, while allowing the petition noted that the defaming remarks (if any) were made against the National BJP Party, and BJP (Telangana) could not be considered a 'person aggrieved' under section 199(1) of the CrPC.
Mohammed Arif Rizwan vs. Sate of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 101
The Telangana High Court recently denied power supply to a property owner who had not filed occupany certificate but had relied on previous orders where court had directed the authorities to release power to concerned party on undertaking to produce the certificate from the Municipal Corporation within a prescribed period.
Stating that this is a case of "misuse" of liberty given to parties, the court directed that electricity connection will not be released to the Petitioner until he produces the occupancy certificate.
Ganga Bhavani @ Gundabattina Ganga Bhavani vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 102
The Telangana High Court quashed the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act against a woman living in America accused of harassing her sister-in-law for dowry via phone calls, observing that the two never lived together in shared house at any point of time.
The respondent no. 2 and her husband (petitioner no. 1) got married in 2020. She claimed that her in-laws looked after her for three months and thereafter her in laws made her to do all the household works without the help of any one.
CMR Engineering Educational Society vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 103
The Telangana High Court has held that district cannot be treated as a locality under Section 20(3) of the Telangana Education Act mandating permission needed by educational institutions for establishment, noting that lawmakers did not use the word 'District' and had instead used the word 'locality'.
The court thus said that while locality is not defined, however generally the state is entitled to treat different localities of a particular district as independent 'locality'
Karabooja Srikanth vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 104
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against late Ch. Ramoji Rao (petitioner 2) on the grounds that criminal proceedings— which involved allegations of receiving deposits from the public in violation of Section 45S of the Reserve Bank of India Act and failure to repay them within the prescribed period, stood abated following his death, as he was the sole Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (Petitioner 1)
Devendra Kumar v/s Santosh Kumar Agarwal and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 105
While adjudicating a rent control dispute where the landlord had sought eviction of the tenant for defaulting in payment of rent, the Telangana High Court said that in such a situation it is the landlord who must always lead evidence first.
In doing so the high court dismissed three petitions filed by petitioner-landlord, seeking to shift the burden of leading evidence onto his tenants (the respondents) in an ongoing matter concerning eviction of the tenant.
X vs. Y
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 106
The Telangana High Court dismissed a woman's appeal seeking divorce claiming 'marriage fraud', after noting that she was unable to prove the allegation that her husband was impotent at the time of marriage and had concealed his medical condition before marriage.
The court observed that if the wife never informed her parents, in-laws about her husband's alleged impotency and inability to perform marital obligations, instead she joined him in USA where they were living after marriage.
Nirupama Dadi vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 107
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that provisions 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, would apply only when the incident either occurred in a public place or was witnessed by at least one independent witness.
The order was passed by Justice E.V. Venugopal in a petition to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who had allegedly insulted her ex-husband using caste based slurs.
Thanneeru Harish Rao v/s The State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 108
The Telangana High Court on Friday (August 22) directed removal of Commission of Inquiry report on alleged irregularities into Kaleshwaram Project from the official government website if already uploaded.
For context the Kaleshwaram project is an irrigation project on the Godavari river.
During the hearing today, the state government gave an assuarance that it shall not act on the findings in the report before it is placed infront of the legislative assembly for consideration and discussion. On Thursday the high court had asked the state's counsel to get instructions on whether it shall take action based on the findings in the report.
K.Bala Vishnu Raja v. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 109
The Telangana High Court Division Bench comprising of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao has observed that for being pulled into the proceedings u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, a non-signatory must have a live and proximate connection to arbitration agreement.
Anumula Revanth Reddy vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 110
The Telangana High Court has accepted the apology tendered by three persons including two lawyers, who had sought to transfer a matter listed before a single judge alleging bias and non-hearing of the petitioner's counsel.
While accepting the apologies, the high court, remarked upon casting of aspersions against a judge when the latter does not have a platform to present their side of the story, adding that attacks on Judges irrevocably dents the dignity of Courts.
J. Chandra Lekha and G. Jayaraj v/s State of Telangana and Anr.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 111
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that a non-bailable warrant cannot be issued against an accused at the stage of summons, merely because he was listed as 'absconding' without demonstrating an urgent requirement.
Referring to guidelines issued by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), Justice N. Tukaramji in his order further noted that no notice of appearance under section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued to the accused petitioners and ordered:
“There is neither any material on record nor any order of the learned Magistrate demonstrating that securing the presence of the petitioners/accused, who are stated to be absconding or taking them into custody was essential for the purpose of investigation. In the absence of such a demonstrated and urgent requirement, the mere fact that the investigating agency has shown the accused as absconding cannot, by itself, justify the Magistrate's order issuing NBWs. It is pertinent to clarify that before resorting to coercive measures, the learned Magistrate is duty-bound to carefully examine the materials produced by the investigating agency, including the nature of the process issued, the allegations made, and the evidence collected. An independent judicial assessment must be undertaken to determine whether the presence or custody of the accused is necessary. Upon forming such an opinion and by recording the reasons though not required to be elaborate, the Magistrate may then proceed to exercise jurisdiction to issue coercive process.”
Pre-Deposit U/S 21 Of RDB Act Should Be Waived For Non-Substantive Appeals: Telangana High Court
Gade Sreenivas Reddy vs State Bank of India
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 112
The Telangana High Court has distinguished between substantive Appeal and procedural appeal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and held that, when a procedural appeal is made under section 21, the pre-deposit of 25%/50% as stipulated under section 21 would be waived off, if the appeal was non-substantive.
“The appeal filed by the petitioner before the DRAT is not a substantive appeal from an adjudication of debt but an appeal for restoration of the principles of natural justice from an ex parte order excluding the petitioner from presenting his case. The significance of preserving the principles of natural justice has specifically been recognised by section 22(1) of the RDB Act. The petitioner's appeal cannot be brought within the stranglehold of the deposit requirement under section 21 of the RDB Act or the proviso contained therein,” held the Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar.
J. Chandra Lekha and G. Jayaraj v/s State of Telangana and Anr.
2025 Livelaw (Tel) 113
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that a non-bailable warrant cannot be issued against an accused at the stage of summons, merely because he was listed as 'absconding' without demonstrating an urgent requirement.
Referring to guidelines issued by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), Justice N. Tukaramji in his order further noted that no notice of appearance under section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued to the accused petitioners and ordered:
“There is neither any material on record nor any order of the learned Magistrate demonstrating that securing the presence of the petitioners/accused, who are stated to be absconding or taking them into custody was essential for the purpose of investigation. In the absence of such a demonstrated and urgent requirement, the mere fact that the investigating agency has shown the accused as absconding cannot, by itself, justify the Magistrate's order issuing NBWs. It is pertinent to clarify that before resorting to coercive measures, the learned Magistrate is duty-bound to carefully examine the materials produced by the investigating agency, including the nature of the process issued, the allegations made, and the evidence collected. An independent judicial assessment must be undertaken to determine whether the presence or custody of the accused is necessary. Upon forming such an opinion and by recording the reasons though not required to be elaborate, the Magistrate may then proceed to exercise jurisdiction to issue coercive process.”
Avula Surender vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 114
The Telangana High Court has declined to interfere with the action of the Child Welfare Committee and District Child Protection Unit in taking away the custody of an adopted child residing with the petitioner, holding that the adoption process was illegal.
The Division Bench of Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar has further held that a petition for habeas corpus can only be entertained when the detention of an individual is illegal. The Bench noted that when the adoption process was not followed, the adoption could not be deemed legal.
Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud vs The State of Telangana and Anr. and batch
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 115
The Telangana High Court has directed the police not to mechanically register FIRs over "harsh, offensive, or critical political speeches", adding that in case of social media posts FIR for promotion of enmity, threat to public order, or sedition can be registered only if there exists a prima facie case.
The court also emphasized that in matters involving political speech, prior legal opinion shall be obtained before registration of FIR.
Telangana High Court Directs CWC To Hand Over Baby To Parents Who Were Victims Of Surrogacy Scam
Mrs. Sr-rcharitha Gangireddygari vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 116
The Telangana High Court has directed the Child Welfare Committee to hand over a baby, taken away from her parents, on account of violations in the surrogacy procedure.
The parents of baby Hiya, contended that they had used the facilities of Dr. Namratha and Universal Srushti Fertility to have a surrogate baby, and were also under the impression that the baby was biologically theirs. However, when the baby fell sick, and blood tests were conducted, it was realised that the baby did not share the same DNA as her parents.
Heavens Home Society vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 117
The Telangana High Court on Monday directed the Additional Director General of Police to file an Action Taken Report in furtherance of the Circular issued in March 2025 to curb the use of spy cameras to record women in girls' hostels, malls, hotels etc. Videos of women filmed secretly while in bathrooms, changing rooms, or private spaces through secretly placed spy cameras.
Justice N V Shravan Kumar, who was hearing the writ ordered: “Having considered the above facts and circumstances, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 07.07.2025 and 10.05.2025 and file a detailed report, stating the action taken on the petitioner's representations dated 07.07.2025 and 10.05.2025, by the next date of hearing.”
Bodda Girish vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 118
The Telangana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a Doctor, accused of rape, after noting that the complainant had filed similar cases against other individuals on prior occasions.
The order was passed by Justice K. Sujana, who noted:
“Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material on record,the alleged offence against the petitioner is under Section 64(1) of BNS which is a serious allegation, whereas, the petitioner herein filed the past crime history of the complainant herein showing that she already implicated several persons with the similar allegations and that she is a married woman and petitioner also filed a copy of petition filed before the Family Court, Gurgaon. Considering the facts of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner…”
Telangana High Court Seeks State's Stand On Plea To Regulate Taxi Fares
Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Union and Another vs. State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 119
The Telangana High Court has sought the State government's stand on a plea by Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Union (TGPWU), questioning the State's inaction in regulating taxi fares thereby permitting aggregators to charge 'as per their whims and fancies'.
The plea claims that the State's inaction to ensure regulation of fare violates provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It claims that non-implementation of a 2022 GO issued by Transport, Roads and Buildings department thereby allowing aggregators to charge an amount as per their wishes is illegal, arbitrary and violates Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and Competition Act.
Prof. A.Vinayak Reddy v/s State of Telangana and Anr.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 120
A PIL has been filed before the Telangana High Court, stating that the State Government in turning a blind eye to the irregularities conducted by the private schools and non-implementation of Government orders which regulate the functioning of the said schools.
The petition filed by retired Professor of Economics A Vinayak Reddy, opposes alleged non-implementation of the Right to Education Act, specifically section 12(1)(c) and the subsequent Government Orders (discussed below).
Dr. Pamula Sushanth Reddy vs. The Medical Counselling Committee and others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 121
The Telangana High Court has directed Central government authorities to consider the application of a medical aspirant possessing an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card seeking admission for NEET-PG course claiming eligibility under NRI quota.
The order was passed by the division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohidduin in a writ petition filed by a student, who contended that despite making an application to the Ministry of External Affairs for the issuance of an Embassy Certificate of Sponsor, the certificate was not being issued.
Telangana Public Service Commission vs. Paramesh Matta
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 122
A division bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, has suspended the directions in an order passed by the single judge, which set aside the Final Marks List and General Ranking List for Group-I examination conducted by the Public Service Commission.
The single judge in his order had noted mass irregularities, bias, and non-transparency.
Telangana High Court Suspends Govt Order Hiking Pawan Kalyan's 'OG' Film Ticket Prices
Barla Mallesh Yadav vs. State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 123
The Telangana High Court in an interim order suspended a memo issued by the state government department permitting cinema theatres to screen one benefit show of actor Pawan Kalyan starrer Telugu movie 'OG' and charge Rs. 800 for it as well as charge other enhanced rates for the movie till October 4.
The plea questions an order passed by State's Department of Home permitting exhibition of cinema, one show at 9.00 pm on September 24, with ticket rate of Rs.800 (including GST) for this show only and other enhanced rates for remaining days till October 4 for the movie.
M/s Janset Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 124
The Telangana High Court Division Bench comprising of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar while hearing a Civil Revision Petition (“CRP”) observed that specified value forms the foundation of a commercial dispute for admission into the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“CC Act”). The pecuniary value, on the other hand, highlights the competence of the Court for trying such a commercial suit.
Barla Mallesh Yadav v/s State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 125
The Telangana High Court on Friday (September 26) extended its earlier interim order which suspended a memo issued by the state government's home department permitting hike in ticket prices for Pawan Kalyan starrer Telugu movie 'OG'.
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar in his order said,“If the interim order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Court is modified/vacated with respect to the increase of prices of tickets and continuing the same would be a clear violation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P. (PIL) Nos.74 and 97 of 2021 and W.As. No.864 of 2017 and batch. Unless a detailed counter is filed by the respondent No.1, the controversy involved this writ petition cannot be decided finally. That apart, stakeholders, who are party in the pending writ petitions before this Court are ought to have been diligent in pursuing the matters. The impugned memo is bereft of reasons in terms of Section 12 of the Act".
M. Rajendra Krishna v. M/s St. Vincent Education Society and Ors
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 126
The Telangana High Court Division Bench, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, observed that while hearing a Civil Miscellaneous Application (“CMA”) observed that the rule-making power of the Inspector General u/s 69(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, does not require any publication in the official gazette.
Mr. Venkateshwarlu Guduru v. Siddhardha De Bathula
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 127
The Telangana High Court Division Bench, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, observed that while hearing a Commercial Court Appeal (“CCA”), the existence of a trade secret is premised upon an assumption that the information sought to be protected is not readily accessible to others and has an independent economic value. This aspect of a trade secret gives the owners the right to protect the trade secret against others.
Buttemgari Madhava Reddy vs. State Of TS & Ors
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 128
The Telangana High Court has stayed the State's decision to grant 42% reservation to Backward Classes (BC) in upcoming local body elections.
A division bench of Chief Justice AP Singh and GM Mohiuddin passed the order.
NMDC Steel Limited vs Danieli and C.Officine Meccaniche SpA
2025 LIveLaw (Tel) 129
The Telangana High Court has held that the forced shift of the Arbitration Venue without the consent of a party amounts to perversity and patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.
The order was passed in a writ petition, challenging a procedural order, by way of which the venue of the 'Closing hearing' was moved from New Delhi to IDRC in London without considering the objections of the respondent
“The forced shift from New Delhi to London would hence not only amount to perversity in terms of the questionable reasoning but also a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction being contrary to the Arbitration Agreement, the ICC Rules of Arbitration as well as The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,” the Division Bench of Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held.
C. Srinivas vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 130
The Telangana High Court, in regard to Section 23(1) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has reiterated that mere non-mentioning of a condition to maintain in a gift deed does not absolve the receiver from the duty of maintenance.
Justice Pulla Karthik, while relying on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit, and rendered by the Kerala High Court in Radhamani and Oths vs. State of Kerala and, Subhashini v. District Collector has held:
“...his Court is of the view that mere non-mentioning of a condition in the gift deed to maintain the executor does not absolve the petitioner from performing his duty to maintain the respondent No.4 to keep the gift deed in force. Therefore, the plea urged by the petitioner in this regard cannot be sustained and is hereby rejected.”
K. Anjali vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 131
While hearing a habeas corpus plea alleging illegal detention of two 19-year-olds in a State Home, the Telangana High Court held that the detenues–stated to be victims of trafficking–being major would not automatically mean that they must be released upon attaining majority if it is not in their best interest.
A division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar said: "Admittedly, the detenues were minors when they were rescued by the Yadagirigutta Police on 17.08.2018 from a trafficking racket. Both the detenues are now 19 years old. However, it does not automatically follow that the child must be released upon attaining majority if the release is not in the best interest of the child. The CWC is fully empowered to take a decision with regard to the further detention or release of the child bearing in mind her safety, welfare and rehabilitation as priorities: Girish Kumar Vs. The State of U.P. Shifa @ Mannu (supra) involved a case a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that the detenue is a major and should hence not be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. The Allahabad High Court held that the Writ could not lie against a lawful order of a competent authority such as the CWC".
K. Indra Mohan vs. Union of India
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 132
The Telangana High Court has directed the Union Bank of India to return INR 2,16,25,000 paid by K. Indra Mohan as 25% of the sale consideration, holding that the Bank had not adequately disclosed to the purchaser the pending litigation over the subject property.
The Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, referring to Rule 9 of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, noted that an impeachable burden was cast on the secured creditor of full disclosure. Additionally, the bench noted that, as per the rules, a sale could only be made of secured assets.
Aziz Hassan Kotadia v/s The State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 133
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a father's habeas corpus plea seeking production of his son, who he claimed was preventively detained on the ground that he was a habitual offender and had robbed two jewellery stores within two months including one while he was out on bail.
The detention order was passed on November 8, 2024 directing the detenu to be lodged in the Central Prison, Cherapally. He was ordered to be detained from 09.11.2024 for the maximum period. i.e., twelve months from the date of detention. The detention order was approved by another order dated 12.11.2024 and thereafter confirmed by an order vide dated 07.12.2024.
Uppu Veeranna v/s State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 134
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging vires of Section 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act 2018 restricting the eligibility of a person to contest elections to the panchayat on grounds of having more than two children.
The petitioner contended that while the matter had already been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) (on a similar legislation by the State of Haryana being Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994) the matter at hand was different.
Smt. Roshni Devi vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 135
While upholding the detention of a woman stated to be a drug peddler caught selling ganja three times last year, Telangana High court remarked that her detention will help in facilitating her moral and social reformation.
A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing a Habeas Corpus plea filed by the daughter of the detenu, challenging her mother's detention as illegal and bad in law.
Discounts On Pending Traffic Challans Encourage Violations: Telangana High Court
V Raghavendra Chary VS. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 136
The Telangana High Court, while dealing with a writ filed challenging an E-Challan generated by the Telangana Police Integrated E-Challan System, without showing the provision of law, noted that imposing fines and granting discounts only weakens the fear of legal consequences in citizens.
“Imposing fines and granting discounts to the traffic violators not only weakens the fear of legal consequences but also encourages repeated violations and traffic indiscipline in Hyderabad and other parts of the State. The matter requires further examination,” said Justice N. V. Shravan Kumar
M/s.ESI Corporation VERSUS M/s.Quality Care India Limited (care hospitals)
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 137
The Telangana High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Employees State Insurance (ESI) Corporation. ESI had challenged an order passed by the Civil Court allowing the application seeking extension of the arbitrator's mandate.
Justice P. Sam Koshy held that the mandate of the arbitrator under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be extended by the court as defined under section 2(1)(e) which expressly included the city civil court having original jurisdiction, not the court that appointed the arbitrator under section 11(6).
M/s. Sri Vishnu Constructions vs State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 138
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that permitting a party to bring on record additional documents at the trial stage without a reasonable cause would defeat purpose of Commercial Courts Act 2015 which aims at speedy disposal of commercial suits.
It further said that a court cannot permit documents to belatedly brought on the court's record on the sole ground that the documents have already been referred to in the written statement.
Mohd Khaleel Ahmed Baag v/s State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 139
The Telangana High Court has issued notice on a Zomato delivery agent's plea challenging the "unjust" and "arbitrary" blocking of his worker ID by the food delivery company citing behavioural issues.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka issued notice to the State government and Zomato on the plea which also seeks a direction to the state government to frame fair and transparent grievance redressal mechanism for gig/platform workers/delivery partners in the State.
Telangana High Court Summons Investigating Officer In Sigachi Blast Case, Mulls Need For SIT Probe
Kalpana Babu Rao vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 140
The Telangana High Court on Thursday directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, investigating the Sigachi Blast case, to appear before it on December 09, along with case diary and other relevant documents showing the progress of investigation.
On 30th June, 20205, a fire broke out in the Sigachi Industries of Hyderabad in Sangareddy district, which was followed by an explosion, that took the lives of 46 individuals and left 8 individuals missing.
Association for Animal Shelter and Rescue Aid AASRA v/s The State of Telangana and Others
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 141
The Telangana High Court on Monday (December 1) has extended its interim order directing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) not to capture street dogs that have already been sterilised, unless a specific complaint is received.
On Friday (November 28) Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy had in its order directed, “List on 01.12.2025. Till then, the respondent authorities are directed not to capture sterilised dogs. However, this order shall not come in the way of the respondent authorities in capturing the street dogs as and when specific instances of dog attacks are reported".
Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 142
Granting bail to a doctor booked for surrogacy-related offences, the Telangana High Court said that once an accused is in judicial custody in the first case, then it is necessary for the investigating authorities to show the arrest and remand of the accused in all connected cases, from the respective dates of registration of FIRs.
The petitioner contended that she was implicated in several crimes registered on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station, all of which arise out of the same or substantially similar transactions.
Baddam Prashanth Reddy vs. State of AP
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 143
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that the competence assessment under section 118 of the Evidence Act, of a child victim is indispensable when the conviction of an accused is based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the child.
“As the trial Court similarly failed to conduct the mandatory competency assessment of the child witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and the conviction here rests solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor whose capacity was not properly tested, making it unsafe to sustain the conviction,” the court said,
Jadhav Gopal vs. State of AP.
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 144
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that oral claims of compliance by the Investigating Officer cannot substitute for the mandatory statutory requirement.
Reiterating the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja and State of Gujarat v. Jagraj Singh, the Court has held that recovery under the NDPS Act should be made in strict compliance of the established procedure, and lapses render the recovery doubtful.