LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 88 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 108Nominal IndexLagadapati Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 88X & Anr. v. Nil, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 89M/s. Sri City Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. N. Sakkubayamma & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 90D. Manjula Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 91Shaik Shabana v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 92Nagalla Venkateswarlu & Ors. v. Sri Rahul Pandey, IFS & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 93Godavarthi Srinivasacharyulu v. D.S.S.S. Subrahmanyam Somayaji & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 94R.P. Kousalya v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 95Kapuganti China Swamy Setty & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 96Pasupuleti Chinachennaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 97ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited v. M/s FE Engineering, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 98Sattaru Ram Mohan Rao v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 99M. Appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 100 T. Satyanarayana v. Turangi Somaraju (Died) & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 101Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 102Varun Jeeri v. Siddavatam Pujitha @ Pujitha Jeeri, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 103Annapoorna (Died) & Others v. S. Satyanarayana Murthy & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 104Dama Sudhir v. B. Sai Chaithanya & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 105Mekala Sindhu Priya v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 106Y. Ramachandrappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh and connected appeal, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 107The A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Managing Director v. Vadde Durganna & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 108Judgments/ OrdersAP High Court Quashes Wantonly Provoking Rioting Charge Against 2 Over Social Media Post Alleging Ex-MLA's Son Was Arrested In Drugs CaseCase Title: Lagadapati Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 88The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the offence of 'wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot', lodged against two persons in connection with circulation of an allegedly false social media post in 2021 claiming that the son of a former MLA had been arrested in a drug case.A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the essential ingredients of Section 153 IPC were not made out from the allegations in the complaint. The Court observed:“Time and again, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court consistently holds that an offence under Section 153/153A IPC requires proving mens rea (guilty intention) to provoke violence or create public disorder. It mandates that speech must be evaluated for promoting enmity or hatred, emphasizing that mere criticism of the government is not a crime. Further, the accused, who has not done anything directly against a specific community, or was not part of a group/rally raising such animosity, they cannot be held guilty merely by association or on suspicion under Section 153A of IPC.”S.13B(2) HMA | Continuation Of Cooling-Off Period Where Couple Conciously Decides To Part Ways Can Prolong Hardship: AP High CourtCase Title: X & Anr. v. NilCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 89The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governing divorce by mutual consent, is directory and not mandatory, and may be waived where parties have genuinely settled all disputes and there is no possibility of reconciliation.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, while clarifying the object of the cooling-off period, observed:“This Court reiterates that the object of Section 13-B(2) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to the parties to reconsider their decision and explore the possibility of reunion. However, when the parties have been living separately for a considerable period, have settled all supplementary issues, and have consciously decided to part ways, the continuation of the statutory period would serve no useful purpose. On the contrary, it would result in prolonging the agony and hardship of the parties. The law does not mandate the preservation of a matrimonial bond that has irretrievably broken down and where there is no likelihood of reconciliation.” The High Court directed the Family court to take up the application for advancement of the matter and pass appropriate orders on dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.Sriharikota Rocket Station Evacuees Are Assignees Of Govt Land Under GO, Can't Claim Absolute Ownership Based On Later Memo: AP High CourtCase Title: M/s. Sri City Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. N. Sakkubayamma & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 90Clarifying the legal status of lands assigned to Sriharikota Rocket Station evacuees under a 1970 rehabilitation scheme, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that such persons were assignees of Government land...

LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers