LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 13 - July 19, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130Nominal IndexBuddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121Duvvuru Nithya Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 122Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124Kanyaka Traders vs Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125Kappala Joseph Paul v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 126Kunisetty Hymavathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 127A. Rajasekhar Gowd v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 128Dr. Lay Kanjibhai Paghdar v. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP), W.P. No. 12871 of 2025Kondrakunta Chandrakanth v. State of A.P. & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 129 N.S. Kirana Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130Judgement/ OrdersPrevious Bail Orders Relevant Material For 'Subjective Satisfaction' Of Preventive Detention: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & OthersCase No.: Writ Petition No. 33545 of 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after finding that the detaining authority failed to consider multiple bail orders granted to the detenu, holding that bail orders are vital material and their non-consideration vitiates the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention.The High Court found that the bail orders had not been considered either while passing the detention order or while confirming it. Holding that such non-consideration vitiated the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.AP High Court Directs University To Award Compensatory Marks To MBBS Student Deprived Due To Repetition Of QuestionsCase Title: Duvvuru Nithya Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Case No.: W.P. No. 15135 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 122Allowing the plea of a final-year MBBS student, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences to award her one additional mark after finding that the repetition of a multiple-choice question in the Ophthalmology examination had unfairly deprived her of an opportunity to answer a different question. The Court held that a candidate in a regular qualifying examination cannot be denied a fair opportunity because of a procedural lapse committed by the examining authority.Partition Of Joint Family Property Not 'Transfer' Under Senior Citizens Act, Can't Be Cancelled For Failure To Maintain Parents: AP High CourtCase Title: Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Case No.: Writ Petition No. 29223 of 2023Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that partition of a joint family property does not amount to "transfer of property" under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and hence such a registered partition deed cannot be cancelled for failure to maintain senior citizen parents, by invoking Section 23 of the Act. In doing so the court held that while a transfer contemplates passing of an interest in property from one person to another, a partition merely separates rights that already existed; thus the two cannot be equated. Party Can't Invoke Article 226 Jurisdiction After Withdrawing Previous Writ Without Seeking Liberty To File Afresh: AP High CourtCase Title: M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & OthersCase No.: W.P. No. 20798 of 2023Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party which withdraws a writ petition without obtaining liberty to file a fresh petition cannot subsequently invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction again on the same cause of action, observing that the remedy under Article 226 is deemed to have been abandoned.Holding that the maintainability of the second writ petition had to be decided before examining the legality of the seigniorage levy, the Court observed that the proper course for the petitioner was to seek review or recall of the earlier order instead of filing a fresh writ petition.AP High Court Upholds Food Corporation Of India's Direction To Rice Millers To Replace Fortified Stocks Which Failed Mandatory Quality TestCase Title: Kanyaka Traders vs Union of India and OthersCase No.: W.P. No. 26620 of 2024 & BatchCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the action of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other authorities directing rice millers to replace fortified rice stocks that failed mandatory quality tests, holding that the authorities acted in accordance with the SOPs governing the Fortified Rice Scheme and that no arbitrariness or violation of natural justice was made out. The Court noted that there is no requirement for the presence of rice millers while samples are drawn or tested. ...

LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 13 - July 19, 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: July 13 - July 19, 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