LiveLaw Telangana High Court Weekly Round-Up : June 29 – July 05, 2026

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. State of Telangana & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94Jyothi Estates v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95Syed Qutubuddin Masood v/s The Election Commission of India 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96Judgments/ Orders This WeekMedical College Has No 'Lien' Over Student's Original Certificates To Enforce Service Bond Executed During Admission: Telangana High CourtCase Title: Dr. Goteti Ravindranath v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 90The 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."Mere Relationship With Accused Can't Justify Attachment Of Third Party's Property In DA Case Without 'Clear Money Trail': Telangana High CourtCase Title: J. Nagakumari v. State of TelanganaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 91The 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.Telangana High Court Refers Disputes Over Demolition & Reconstruction Of Kanyaka Parameshwari Temple To Endowments AuthorityCase Title: Nagilla Srinivas v. State of Telangana & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 92The 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.Registry Can't Refuse To Register Contempt Petition Citing Limitation Which Only Court Can Adjudicate: Telangana High CourtCase Title: M/s. Divyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association v. Mr. Gowtham Potru & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 93The 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."Govt Can't Arbitrarily Scrap Panel For Appointment Of Law Officers Without Justification: Telangana High CourtCase Title: Varikota Ramgopal v. State of Telangana & OrsCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94The Telangana High Court has held that while empanelment does not confer an indefeasible right to...

LiveLaw Telangana High Court Weekly Round-Up : June 29 – July 05, 2026

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ananya Tangri

LiveLaw Telangana High Court Weekly Round-Up : June 29 – July 05, 2026

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers