Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 89 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96Nominal Index Dr. Goteti Ravindranath v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 90J. Nagakumari v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 91M/s. Divyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association v. Mr. Gowtham Potru & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 93Nagilla Srinivas v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 92Varikota Ramgopal v....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 89 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96
Nominal Index
Dr. Goteti Ravindranath v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 90
J. Nagakumari v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 91
M/s. Divyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association v. Mr. Gowtham Potru & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 93
Nagilla Srinivas v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 92
Varikota Ramgopal v. State of Telangana & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94
Jyothi Estates v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
Syed Qutubuddin Masood v/s The Election Commission of India 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Dr. Goteti Ravindranath v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 90
The Telangana High Court has held that a medical college cannot withhold a doctor's original educational certificates to enforce a service bond executed at the time of admission.
The Court observed that even if a candidate breaches the bond by failing to serve in government hospitals, the college has no lien over the original certificates and must recover the bond amount through appropriate legal proceedings.
Allowing a writ appeal filed by a doctor who had completed his super-specialty course, a Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed:
"Respondent No.8 – College has no lien over the original certificates of the candidates including the appellant herein. If appellant violates the aforesaid undertaking... respondent No.8 – College is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from the appellant... respondent No.8 – College has to file a suit against the appellant seeking recovery of money but it can't withhold the original certificates and it has no lien."
Case Title: J. Nagakumari v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 91
The Telangana High Court has held that attachment of properties standing in the name of a third party cannot continue merely because the person is related to an accused in a disproportionate assets case.
The Court further observed that where the sole accused dies before commencement of trial and the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie nexus between the attached properties and the alleged ill-gotten wealth, continuation of attachment would be legally unsustainable.
Case Title: Nagilla Srinivas v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 92
The Telangana High Court has directed the competent authority under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act to conduct a detailed enquiry into allegations concerning the demolition and reconstruction of the historic Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Temple located at Secunderabad.
The allegations include claims of unauthorized razing of the old structure and construction of new structures in the temple premises, relocation of the deity, non-performance of essential religious rituals, lack of audit of donations and alleged misuse of nearly ₹16 crore collected from devotees.
Case Title: M/s. Divyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association v. Mr. Gowtham Potru & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 93
The Telangana High Court has held that the Registry cannot refuse to register a contempt petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Court observed that questions relating to limitation or maintainability must only be decided by the contempt court itself.
Allowing a contempt appeal, a Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed:
"At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that even if it be a matter of limitation or any other preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the contempt case is concerned, it is not the Registry which has to raise an objection, rather in a contempt case, the role of the appellant herein, the petitioner in contempt case, is only that of an informer informing the Court in respect of the so-called violation or non-compliance or disobedience of the order. Rest of the role is between the Court and the contemnor. Maintainability of the case itself is again a matter, which needs to be considered and decided only by the contempt Court seized of jurisdiction."
Case Title: Varikota Ramgopal v. State of Telangana & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94
The Telangana High Court has held that while empanelment does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment as a Government Pleader, the Government cannot arbitrarily discard an already prepared panel and substitute it with a fresh one without giving reasons or without following a fair, transparent and legally sustainable process.
Allowing a writ petition filed by an advocate whose name was omitted from a revised panel for appointment as Government Pleader, Justice N. Tukaramji observed that from the statutory framework, it is evident that the role of the District Judge and the District Collector in the process is recommendatory in nature.
Case Title: Jyothi Estates v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
The Telangana High Court has held that the State cannot claim title over a property or erect a signboard declaring it to be "Government land" solely on the basis of entries in the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) in absence of any substantive material or title documents to support its claim.
The Court observed that TSLR entries are only revenue records and do not by themselves establish title.
Allowing a writ petition filed by Jyothi Estates, Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty observed:
"The State cannot claim title over the subject land merely based on the entries in the TSLRs and thereby, it is not entitled to erect a sign board as 'Government land' in the subject land. The State is at liberty to approach appropriate forum to declare its title over the subject land and subject to the result therefrom, then proceed in accordance with law."
Case Title: Syed Qutubuddin Masood v/s The Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96
The Telangana High Court has asked a family to participate in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in the State over their grievance on deletion of their names from the electoral rolls.
A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin noted that the SIR process provides for a forum and procedure for inclusion of electors whose names have been deleted from the rolls.
It therefore dismissed the family's plea seeking a direction to ECI to implement the procedure for grievance redressal regarding wrongful deletion of names from the electoral roll and for restoration of such names along with their original EPIC (Voter ID) numbers and electoral records.