Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 60 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 69 Nominal IndexX v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 60X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 61 Pinninti Rachana Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 62Ms. Venkata Aswini Reddy Koyya @ Ashu Reddy v. Mr. Yetimulla Satyanarayana Murthy & 32 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 63Madisetti Samelu v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 60 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
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
Judgments/Orders This Week
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.