Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 25 - March 31, 2024

Nominal Index:Pinapala Uday Bhushan vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 25S.v.v.estates (swarna Palace) Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 26Smt. G. Krishnaveni vs The State through S.H.O., PS, 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 53Dubbudu Ramakanth Reddy vs State of TS, 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 54Central Bureau of Investigation, vs Sridhar Subasri, A2 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 55Mohammed Abdul Mobeen Mobin vs. State of TS, 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 56Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanapudi vs. the Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 57Dugyala Praneeth Kumar alias Praneeth Rao vs. The State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 58Nossam Mohammed Yunus vs State of TS, 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 59Report:[S.41A CrPC] Mere Issuance Of Notice Will Not Act As Bar Against Application For Anticipatory Bail: Andhra Pradesh High CourtPinapala Uday Bhushan vs The State of Andhra Pradesh2024 LiveLaw (AP) 25The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere issuance of a Section 41-A CrPc notice will not act as a bar against an application for anticipatory bail.Relying on the order passed by in Sri. Ramappa @ Ramesh s/o Dharmanna vs. State of Karnataka the Bench held:"In the light of the above decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court views that there is apprehension of arrest exists, even after issuance of notice of appearance it cannot be said that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable."Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Municipal Corporation To Decide Representation On Waiver Of Interest On Property Tax ArrearsS.v.v.estates (swarna Palace) Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 26The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while restraining the Municipal Corporation from taking coercive steps against the petitioner, directed the corporation to decide representation on a waiver of interest on property tax arrears.The bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati has observed that the petitioner seems to have been paid an amount of Rs. 25,09,386 which includes penalty and interest on the property tax. Out of the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the waiver amount (penalties and interest) of Rs. 9,91,593 by virtue of the government orders. For the current year, the government has issued the latest G.O.M. No. 35 dated February 29, 2024, in which the last date for availing of a waiver is March 31, 2024, for payment of total arrears and current year tax in one lump sum or in instalments.Change Of Counsel Not Proper Ground To Explain 10 Yr-Delay In Challenging Defendant's Statement, Seeking Reopening Of Evidence: Telangana HCSmt. G. Krishnaveni vs The State through S.H.O., PS2024 LiveLaw (TS) 53The Telangana High Court has held that change in counsel is not a ground for explaining the delay in filing a petition in the absence of cogent evidence supporting the claim.The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman in a batch of revision petitions filed by the plaintiff following the dismissal of pleas filed by him to receive certified copies of sale deeds, implead, reopen, and recall PW1 for further examination. The Bench said:“The petitioner herein failed to give any explanation, much less plausible explanation with regard to the delay and the reasons except change of counsel which is not a proper ground. The petitioner herein having filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession has to prove his claim by producing cogent evidence. Though written statements were filed in the year 2012, the petitioner herein had filed the present IAs in the year 2022, that too, after cross-examining DWs.1 and 2 at length. Burden lies on the petitioner-plaintiff to prove his claim. He cannot depend on the weaknesses of the defendants.”S.188 CrPC: Centre's Sanction Required To Try Offences Committed Outside India, Telangana High Court Quashes Dowry CaseDubbudu Ramakanth Reddy vs State of TS2024 LiveLaw (TS) 54The Telangana High Court has reiterated that when any offence involving an Indian citizen is committed outside of India, the trial should not be processed with, without the prior sanction of the Central Government. It thus quashed criminal proceedings initiated in India against a husband and in-laws based on incidents of dowry demand that were made outside of India."This Court is of the opinion that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is required for proceeding with against the petitioners herein for the offenses alleged in the complaint, on the basis of which the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been registered. As this Court is not satisfied that the offences under Sections 498A, 417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the C.C., as having been committed in India."[Prevention Of Corruption Act] Chairman, MD & Executive Director Of Private Bank Come Under Definition Of "Public Servants": Telangana...

Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 25 - March 31, 2024

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags