Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 60 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
Nominal Index
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 60
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 61
Pinninti Rachana Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 62
Ms. Venkata Aswini Reddy Koyya @ Ashu Reddy v. Mr. Yetimulla Satyanarayana Murthy & 32 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 63
Madisetti Samelu v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 64
Baqtawar Begum & 11 others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & 9 others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 65
Girigalla Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 66
The Warden & Correspondent, St. George's Grammar School & another v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 67
Syed Arshed Ahmed @ Arshad Hashmi v. V. Srinivasa Rao 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 68
Sri Naralasetty Pavan Chandra Nagoor v. Sri Ravi Kumar Meruva 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
J.V. Nrupender Rao v. Regional P.F. Commissioner-II, Regional Office & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 70
Reshma v. State of A.P. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 71
Shaik Abdul Khader v. G. Anil Dutt Kamble 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 72
Nalamada Uthamkumar Reddy v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 73
K. Ganesh Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
Bandi Sai Bageerath v/s State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 75
Dr. Pachipala Namratha @ Athaluri Namratha v. Union of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 76
S. Sanjeev v. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSNPDCL, OP, Nirmal District, Telangana State & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 60
The Telangana High Court quashed a family court order restraining a wife from going anywhere near her husband including his house and his working, during pendency of divorce proceedings.
Terming the restraint order as "unprecedented" the court observed that merely because the wife had filed criminal cases against her husband would not justify such a severe consequence.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 61
Quashing a family court order restraining the wife from going near her husband during pendency of divorce proceedings on the ground of her alleged "psychiatric disorder", the Telangana High Court remarked that the courts are least equipped to arrive at such a finding in absence of any expert medical evidence.
It said that thwarting free access of one individual to another, that too married persons, requires a high benchmark of justification. It remarked that family court does not disclose any such credible reasons.
Case Title: Pinninti Rachana Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 62
The Telangana High Court transferred to the CBCID investigation into the death of a cop who was working at Kukunoorpally Police Station, holding that when serious allegations are made against police officers themselves then investigation conducted by the same agency raises reasonable apprehension of bias warranting transfer.
Justice N. Tukaramji observed:
“In cases where allegations are made against police officials themselves, investigation by the same agency may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Even in the absence of proven mala fides, reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to warrant transfer of investigation.”
Case Title: Ms. Venkata Aswini Reddy Koyya @ Ashu Reddy v. Mr. Yetimulla Satyanarayana Murthy & 32 Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 63
The Telangana High Court has in an interim order restrained over 30 media platforms from publishing allegedly defamatory content against actress Ashu Reddy, until the trial court decides her injunction application in her defamation suit.
The actress had moved the high court, after the trial court refused to grant ex parte ad interim injunction.
Case Title: Madisetti Samelu v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 64
The Telangana High Court has held that a rowdy sheet cannot be continued on the basis of vague allegations, mechanical endorsements, and annual renewals unsupported by concrete material showing disturbance to public peace.
Quashing the rowdy sheet opened against a social worker, Justice N. Tukaramji observed:
"In the present case, the material on record indicates that the renewal of the rowdy sheet has been carried out at annual intervals, contrary to the requirement of periodic review as contemplated under the Standing Orders; the proposal for renewal submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police contains generalized and unsubstantiated allegations, such as the petitioner being “young and energetic” and allegedly encouraging tribals to encroach upon lands; the recommendation made by the Circle Inspector and the approval granted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer appear to be mechanical, with endorsements such as “permitted,” without recording any independent reasons or satisfaction based on material; and there is no specific material placed on record demonstrating any recent overt act by the petitioner affecting public peace or law and order.
Case Title: Baqtawar Begum & 11 others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & 9 others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 65
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking release of land in Ranga Reddy District from the proposed reserved forest notification, referring to Supreme Court's judgment which had held that this land belonged to the Government and proposal for final notification under the Telangana Forest Act was validly initiated.
Notably in December last year the Supreme Court in State of Telangana, represented by Forest Divisional Officer v. Mir Jaffar Ali Khan (dead), through LRs and others had upheld rights of the forest department over 102 acres of land in the same district and had rejected the ownership claims made by alleged successors in-interest of Salar Jung-III, including the Claimants before it.
Case Title: Girigalla Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 66
The Telangana High Court has held that postal department cannot indefinitely continue a freeze on Joint-B “Either or Survivor” fixed deposit accounts (joint account which allows either holder to operate it independently), merely because allegations of fraud were raised in a legal notice.
This, particularly when the Department of Posts itself has made no adjudication on such allegations, no rival claimant has come forward and the governing rules otherwise permit either holder to independently operate the deposits.
Private School Teachers Entitled To Gratuity After 2009 Amendment: Telangana High Court
Case Title: The Warden & Correspondent, St. George's Grammar School & another v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 67
The Telangana High Court has held that teachers in private educational institutions are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, in view of the 2009 amendment which retrospectively widened the definition of “employee” with effect from 03.04.1997.
The amendment was made via the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi held that the earlier Supreme Court ruling excluding teachers from the Act no longer governs the field after the amendment.
Case Title: Syed Arshed Ahmed @ Arshad Hashmi v. V. Srinivasa Rao
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 68
The Telangana High Court has held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because a charge sheet was filed despite a subsisting stay order, unless there is cogent material to show that the officer concerned had actual knowledge of the stay order and still willfully violated it.
In doing so the court also issued a slew directions to ensure complaince of judicial orders impeded due to ineffective communication, adding that the compliance with the the court's directions is mandatory and any deviation therefrom will be viewed seriously.
Case Title: Sri Naralasetty Pavan Chandra Nagoor v. Sri Ravi Kumar Meruva
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
The Telangana High Court has held that a money decree passed by the Federal Court of Sharjah is executable in India under Section 44A CPC since the United Arab Emirates is a notified reciprocating territory and the judgment debtor failed to show that the decree fell within any of the exceptions under Section 13 CPC.
Section 13 states situations when a foreign judgment is not conclusive. One such situation is prescribed under Section 13(b) where the foreign judgment it has not been given on the merits of the case.
Case Title: J.V. Nrupender Rao v. Regional P.F. Commissioner-II, Regional Office & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 70
The Telangana High Court has held that if an establishment and its provident fund trust fail to transfer past accumulations to the Employee Provident Fund Organisarion after surrender of exemption, the statutory liability is on the employer and the trust and not automatically on the employee who received settlement of his own PF dues.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka held that, in the absence of any specific statutory provision authorising direct recovery from the employee, and in the absence of compliance with principles of natural justice, such a recovery notice cannot be sustained.
Case Title: Reshma v. State of A.P.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 71
The Telangana High Court has upheld the conviction of a wife for culpable homicide not amounting to murder who had during a sudden quarrel, in the spur of the moment, stabbed her husband after he allegedly showed up naked, threatened and abused her family members.
IPC Section 304 Part II pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada while upholding the conviction under IPC Section 304 Part II, however took a lenient view on sentence and reduced the four-year jail term to fine alone.
Case Title: Shaik Abdul Khader v. G. Anil Dutt Kamble
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 72
The Telangana High Court allowed a petition by a decree-holder seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration after a delay of 3358 days, noting that the respondent seller had neither contested the specific performance suit nor challenged the decree for nearly 10 years after it was passed.
Justice Renuka Yara observed that once the respondent had allowed the decree for specific performance to attain finality, he could not have a valid ground to oppose the later plea for condonation of delay in deposit of the sale consideration.
Case Title: Nalamada Uthamkumar Reddy v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 73
The Telangana High Court quashed a case against former MP Nalamada Uttamkumar Reddy in connection with a 2019 roadshow during the Huzurnagar Assembly by-election, holding that prosecution for an offence under Section 188 IPC could not have been initiated on a police report due to bar under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC.
Section 188 IPC pertains to disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Section 195(1)(a) CrPC states that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of IPC except "on the complaint" in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
Case Title: K. Ganesh Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
The Telangana High Court has held that renewal of an arms licence cannot be refused on the basis of generalized law-and-order concerns, vague apprehensions that Maoists or anti-social elements may snatch the weapon, or unsubstantiated allegations of misuse, when there is no concrete adverse material against the licence-holder.
Allowing a writ petition filed by a trade union leader from Mahabubnagar, Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy held that the rejection order rested only on “general law and order concerns and unsubstantiated apprehensions,” which did not satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 14(1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Telangana High Court Declines Interim Protection From Arrest To Bandi Bageerath In POCSO Case
Case Title: Bandi Sai Bageerath v/s State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 75
In a hearing spanning over two and half hours and nearly touching the midnight mark, the Telangana High Court on Friday (May 15) refused to grant interim protection from arrest to Bandi Sai Bageerath, son of Minister of State for Home Affairs and BJP leader Bandi Sanjay Kumar, who is booked in a POCSO case.
As the hearing drew to a close the court orally said that it had thought of passing an order however given the volume and the materials in the matter it would not be able to pass an order at the moment.
Case Title: Dr. Pachipala Namratha @ Athaluri Namratha v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 76
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with the arrest of fertility doctor under the PMLA in a case containing allegations of cheating and illegal surrogacy, holding that a writ petition challenging arrest under PMLA cannot be converted into a “surrogate bail hearing” or a “mini-trial” on the correctness of the investigation.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda said that at this stage, judicial review is confined to legality, jurisdictional facts and procedural fairness, and not to an appellate reassessment of the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate.
Case Title: S. Sanjeev v. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSNPDCL, OP, Nirmal District, Telangana State & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
The Telangana High Court has held that a missing employee cannot be treated as a case of “death in harness” merely because 7 years have passed raising presumption of death under Section 108 Indian Evidence Act, to claim benefit of compassionate appointment scheme if scheme contains a separate category for missing employees.
Dismissing a writ appeal filed by the son of a missing TSNPDCL lineman, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin held that the statutory presumption under Section 108 cannot be used to bypass the express terms of the scheme.