LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 3 - August 9, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 170 – 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 182Nominal IndexKareti Venkata Vahini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 170Devathi Ravi Kumar v. Smt. Botla Rama Devi, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 171Adury Venkatramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 172Siddabattula Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 173The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dasari Anuradha and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 174Karothu Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175Ponna Roja v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 176V. Chandrasekhar Naidu v. E. Muneendra & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 177R. Thimmappa v. District Panchayat Officer & Ors. and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 178Ogirala Venkata Sai Sunil Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 179Siddineni Venkateswara Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 180Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 181Dunga Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 182Judgement/ OrdersS.397(2) CrPC | Order Refusing Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage Is Interlocutory, Revision Not Maintainable: AP High CourtCase Title: Kareti Venkata Vahini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 326 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 170The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a criminal revision petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order rejecting an application to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. The Court clarified that such an order does not determine the substantive rights of the parties and is therefore barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Unregistered Sale Agreement Delivering Possession Can't Be Marked As Evidence Without Payment Of Stamp Duty: AP High CourtCase Title: Devathi Ravi Kumar v. Smt. Botla Rama DeviCase No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 957 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 171The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where an agreement of sale specifically recites delivery of possession, the document attracts stamp duty and penalty, and cannot be received in evidence unless it is duly stamped. Dismissing a Civil Revision Petition, the Court upheld the trial court's order refusing to mark an unregistered agreement of sale-cum-possession as an exhibit in a suit for specific performance.AP High Court Asks Endowments Department To Decide Representation For Temple Trustee Post After Hearing ApplicantCase Title: Adury Venkatramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Case No.: Writ Petition No. 673 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 172The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Endowment Department to decide a representation seeking appointment as a member of a Temple Trust Board after affording the applicant a sufficient opportunity of hearing.Taking note of the petitioner's grievance, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks after affording him an opportunity of hearing.Failure To Place Relevant Material Before District Magistrate Vitiates Preventive Detention Order: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Siddabattula Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2362 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 173The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after observing the relevant material was not placed before the District Magistrate while passing the detention order. Holding that such non-consideration vitiates the detention, the Court set aside both the detention order and the Government's confirmation order, while leaving it open to the authorities to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.Deceased's Car Hitting Offending Vehicle From Behind Not Contributory Negligence In Absence Of Evidence: AP High CourtCase Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dasari Anuradha and OthersCase No.: MACMA No. 1913 of 2010Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 174Enhancing a motor accident award, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that deceased's car dashing into the offending vehicle from behind is not enough for Insurance Company to claim contributory negligence in absence of rebuttal evidence particularly of the offending vehicle's driver. Dismissing an appeal filed by the insurer, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased marine engineer from Rs. 41.10 lakh to Rs. 62.77 lakh after finding that the Tribunal had wrongly deducted one-third towards personal expenses, failed to award future prospects, and applied an incorrect multiplier.Retrospective Change In Probation Date Can't Be Used To Alter Settled Seniority, Violates Service Rules & Natural Justice: AP High CourtCase Title: Karothu Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6546 of 2024Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175The Andhra Pradesh High Court has...

LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 3 - August 9, 2026

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 3 - August 9, 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