Telangana High Court Annual Digest 2022 [Citations 1 – 102]
Amisha Shrivastava
31 Dec 2022 8:15 AM GMT
![Telangana High Court Annual Digest 2022 [Citations 1 – 102]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/12/31/750x450_451531-important-judgments-of-2022-telangana-hc.webp "Telangana High Court Annual Digest 2022 [Citations 1 – 102]")
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 1 to 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 102Nominal IndexKodam Danalakshmi v. State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 1Bandi Sanjay Kumar v. State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 2xxxx v. State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 3President, Healthcare Reforms Doctors Assn., Hyd v. Spl Chief Secy, Health, Medical Family Welf Dept 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 4Sirpur Paper Mills Limited...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 1 to 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 102
Nominal Index
Kodam Danalakshmi v. State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 1
Bandi Sanjay Kumar v. State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 2
xxxx v. State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 3
President, Healthcare Reforms Doctors Assn., Hyd v. Spl Chief Secy, Health, Medical Family Welf Dept 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 4
Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another. V. Union of India & Others 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 5
D. Swamy Joshua v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 6
Sri. Mettu Krishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 7
Mohamed Abdul Nayeem Zakee v. The State of Telengana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 8
D. Janardhan Reddy v. K. Murali and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 9
Janapally Anjilaiah v. The State of A.P.2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 10
Syed Inayathullah vs The State Of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 11
The State Of AP. v. Ajmeera Raghu 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 12
Mandala Murali v. The State of AP 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 13
V. Shivaji & Ors. V. K. Murali & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 14
B.Vijay Kumar Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 15
Nasreen Sultana v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 16
Basa Bagawantha Rao v. Vemumula Sulochana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 17
Alt Digital Media Entertainment Ltd (Alt balaji) v. Price Media & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 18
M/s. Jupiter Industries v. Canara Bank2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 19
N. Parvathalu v. APSRTC 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 20
M. Raghunandan Rao & Ors. v. Telangana Legislative Assembly & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 21
Ch.Anjaneyulu, Medak Sangareddy v. The State Of Telangana2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 22
Mohammed Sami Ullah Qureshi v. The Government Of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 23
Roop Singh Bhatty and Ors. v. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 24
Andela Eswaramma, R.R. District V. State Of A.P., Hyderabad 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 25
Madiraju Radha Krishna Rao v. The Land Acquisition Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 26
C. Chandra Mohan Reddy v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 27
Mrs. Ragya Bee (deceased) and Others v. M/s. P.S.R. Constructions 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 28
Union of India, Rep. by Ministry of Railways v. Krishnapatnam Railway Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 29
Access Tough Doors P. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner ST 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 30
Jonnagaddala Swathi v. L. Karthika Chakravarthy 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 31
Gagiri Hari Krishna v. M/s Jasper Industries Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 32
D.M., TSRTC v. Gollamandala Subba Raju Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 33
M/s Prime Properties v. Mr. Alam Khan 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 34
M/S.United India Insurance Co Ltd V. Sri Rama Swamy & 2 Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 35
Nookala Venkateswarlu Died & Anr V. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
The National Stock Exchange of India Limited v. State of Telangana and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 37
K. Savya v. The Station House Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 38
Sultana Begum v. Sri Ahmed Hussain Shaik 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 39
M/s. M.S.R. Enterprises v. M/s. Pooja Enterprises 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 40
Veldana Srilatha v. Gundumalla Anantha Reddy 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 41
APR Jewellers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 42
C. Srimannarayana v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, SECBAD and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 43
A. Kaluram v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 44
Vakalapudi Yugandhar v. The State Of Telangana And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 45
C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 46
Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy v. Mr. A. R. Srinivas and others 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
M/s BPR Infrastructure Limited v. M/s. RITES Ltd. and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 48
Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. M/s. A.A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 49
M/s. India Media Services Pvt Ltd. v. M/s. SBPL Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 50
Sumana Paruchuri v. Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 51
Naveen P Malvay v. Samskruthi Shelters 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 52
Terra Infra Development Ltd. v. NCC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 53
M/s S. Square Infra v. Garneni Chalapathi Rao 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 54
Yeddandi Venkataiah v. M/s.Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
M/s Rashmi Metaliks Limited v. M/s Techno Unique Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel)56
Garikapati Venkateswara Rao v. Union of India & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 57
M/s. The AGA Khan Academy v. Assistant PF Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 58
The State of Telangana v. Konyala Vijaya Kumar and others 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
K. Satyanarayana Reddy v. P. Dayanand Reddy 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 60
The Drugs Inspector v. Chippa Thirupathi 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 61
Bolusani Gowri Shankar v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 62
The State of Telangana v. Dasari Murali 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 63
K.Rattaiah @ Ratnaji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 64
M/s Ani Technologies Private Limited V. State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 65
M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works & Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 66
Vanka Rajesh Raju v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 67
Guda Mahender v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 68
T Dhangopal Rao V. Chief Secy., Hyd., Tg 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
Mekala Shiva v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 70
Veeraboina Yadaiah v. Ramakanth Dande 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 71
Ganta Sudheer Kumar v. T Nagi Reddy, Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality & others 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 72
K. Suresh Kaushik v. State Bank of Hyderabad 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 73
M.A. Mahaboob v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
Prakash Singh v. The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 75
Ganta Narender v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 76
Tata Consumer Products Limited and another v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
P. Rajeshwari And Another v. The State Of A.P. Another 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 78
Baba Sow Chandekar & another v. The State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
D. Ravinder Reddy v. Smt. C. Geethanjali 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 80
Madeenam Raju v. B. Sainath and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 81
State of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Sri Agpa Pharmaceuticals 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 82
ITC Limited- International Business v. Wide Ocean Shipping Service Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 83
Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, v. Central Bureau Of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 84
M/s. Srico Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 85
Chityala Srinivas Srinu v. The State Of A.P. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 86
M/s Sawera Township India Private Limited v. Faisal Bin Tirif 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 87
Micro Systems And Services Sole Proprietorship v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 88
Md. Afroz Baig v. State Bank of India, Mumbai, and another 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 89
Goli Sai Koti Vali Prabhu v. The State of Telangana & Others 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 90
Ms. Kanumuru Rama Devi v. M/s REC Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 91
Netflix Entertainment Service India LLP v. Byrraju Ramalinga Raju 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 92
M/s Hyderabad Restro Lounges Association v. Jubilee Hills Residents Clean and Green Association 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 93
T. Usha Bhai v. State of Telangana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 94
Kore Nandu Kumar v. The State of Telangana along with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
K. Rajkumar v. State of A.P. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 96
N.R Indira v. The State of Telangana and 3 others 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 97
M/s.Rajeshwara Rings Pvt Ltd v. AP State Financial Corporation Telangana Division 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 98
Donepudi Sandhya C. Sandhya v. State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 99
Trisha Chandran v. Superintendent, Cherlapally Central Prison & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 100
Bharatiya JanataParty & Ors v State of Telangana 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 101
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: Kodam Danalakshmi v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 1
In a case pertaining to dishonour of cheque, the Telangana High Court recently ruled that a joint account holder who is not a signatory to the disputed cheque shall not be prosecuted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981.
Justice Shameem Akhtar held that a mere joint account holder but not a signatory cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of NI Act, unless and until his/ her signatures are on the cheque. The Court further observed that penal provisions are to be construed strictly and not in a routine/casual manner.
Violation of Covid-19 Norms: Telangana High Court Releases BJP State President Bandi Sanjay
Case Title: Bandi Sanjay Kumar v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 2
The Telangana High Cour released BJP State President Bandi Sanjay Kumar who was sent to a 14-day judicial remand for allegedly violating Covid-19 norms and thereby assaulting a public servant, with a condition to furnish a personal bond.
While staying the remand order, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also issued notice to the State government in the matter.
Case Title: xxxx v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 3
The Telangana High Court laid down that the life of the foetus or to be born child cannot be placed at higher pedestal than that of the life of the woman.
The court observed that Constitutional Courts have the power under writ jurisdiction to direct termination of pregnancy, even when the length of pregnancy is beyond the statutory limit of twenty-four weeks as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021 (The Act).
State Govt Can't Transgress Fees Fixed By Fee Regulatory Committee: Telangana High Court
Case Title: President, Healthcare Reforms Doctors Assn., Hyd v. Spl Chief Secy, Health, Medical Family Welf Dept
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 4
The Telangana High Court held that once a fee regulatory committee (an expert body) has been formed by the State government to deal with the job of fixing fees and that Committee does its job, the State government then cannot transgress its jurisdiction by doing the job that was assigned to the expert body.
Case Title: Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another. V. Union of India & Two Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 5
The High Court of Telangana in a Bench consisting of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Chillakur Sumalatha held that for the period covered by the Resolution Plan, Income Tax Department cannot carry out any scrutiny or assessment in respect of the Corporate Debtor regarding carry forward of losses and set off against future profits under Income Tax Act, 1961.
It held that the claims of the Income Tax Department, which are outside the resolution plan would stand extinguished. As regards carry forward of losses and adjustments, the Court held that when carry forward and set off are claimed by the petitioner in the future (beyond the period covered by the resolution plan), the Income Tax Department would be entitled to verify such claim and pass appropriate orders. However, scrutiny or assessment cannot be carried out in the period covered by the Resolution Plan.
Accrued Rights Of Individuals Cannot Be Taken Away By A Prospective Amendment: Telangana High Court
Case Title: D. Swamy Joshua v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 6
Telangana High Court held that a right once accrued cannot be wiped out by a prospective amendment and the benefits that were acquired under existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect.
The observation was made by a bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N. Tukaramji while disposing of a batch of petitions challenging a government order amending the Telangana Police (Civil) Subordinate Services rules because of which the petitioners were deprived of their accrued right for promotion.
Case Title: Sri. Mettu Krishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 7
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that the discretion conferred upon a Court by virtue of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised "judiciously".
Section 256 CrPC contemplates dismissal on default of complainant. It provides that the Court may, after issuance of summons, if the complainant does not appear, acquit the accused unless for some reason it thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day.
In this light, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed,
"This Court is of the view that just because the power is vested with the Court under Section 256 Cr.P.C. on the ground of absence of complainant, the complaint shall not be dismissed. The learned Judge has to exercise the discretion judiciously by looking at the facts of the case and the Courts need not be so harsh on the complainant."
Case Title: Mohamed Abdul Nayeem Zakee v. The State of Telengana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 8
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that executive instructions with check on ground realities advance the purpose of statute and act as a guiding factor for effective implementation. Furthermore, reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the State Government to protect life of a common man and it is not an infringement of a person's constitutional right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g).
Police Commissioner refused to grant 'No Objection Certificate' for establishment of Auto LPG Dispensing Unit as the establishment of the same near a traffic junction is not permissible as per a Circular issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2006. The petitioner contended that under Rule 47 'Static and Mobile Pressure Vessels (Unfired) Rules, 2016, Commissioner of Police does not have any discretion to reject the application for NOC.
The court observed that there is no conflict between the statutory provisions and the executive instructions issued by the State Government. There is no similar provision in respect of distance from traffic junction, minimum road width, minimum and maximum opening requirement (entry and exit) and as no such provision finds place under the Explosives Act or SMPV(U) Rules, the question of conflict does not arise. Further, the ground realities can be looked into only by Commissioner of Police in respect of location.
Case Title: D. Janardhan Reddy v. K. Murali and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 9
The Telangana High Court ruled that in case of violation of insurance policy conditions, the insurer is still liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and it may recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle later.
It relied upon the principle of "pay and recover" as laid down by the Apex Court in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh, 2017.
Case Title: Janapally Anjilaiah v. The State of A.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 10
The Telangana High Court reiterated that circumstantial evidence is a weak form of evidence and the conviction of an accused cannot be solely based on circumstantial evidence unless the chain of evidence leaves no other conclusion except accused's guilt.
The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili further held that to decide whether the chain of evidence pertaining to circumstantial evidence is complete, every hypothesis but the one supposed to be proved must be excluded.
The High Court reiterated that in cases of circumstantial evidence, judges must tread cautiously to not allow suspicion and conjectures to take place of proof.
Case Title: Syed Inayathullah vs The State Of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 11
The Telangana High Court has observed that after issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., if the police feel that the accused has to be arrested, then, without obtaining permission from the Magistrate concerned, they cannot arrest the accused.
The Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed thus while dealing with an anticipatory bail plea filed by the application in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC.
Case Title: The State Of AP. v. Ajmeera Raghu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 12
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that children cannot be called to the court and cited as witnesses unless it is very much essential and there were no other witnesses to prove the case. The non-examination of children is not fatal to the prosecution case when there were adult witnesses available, it added.
The observation was made by Justice G. Radha Rani, while hearing an appeal preferred by the State against the trial Court order acquitting the accused for offences under Sections 448 (house-trespass), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC.
Case Title: Mandala Murali v. The State of AP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 13
The Telangana High Court recently reiterated that Dying Declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if the deceased makes the statement in a fit state of mind and voluntarily.
Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma relied on the decision in Atbir v. Govt. of NCT Delhi, 2010 in which it was ruled that the Dying Declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence of the Court and the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement.
Case Title: V. Shivaji & Ors. V. K. Murali & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 14
The Telangana High Court ruled that the compensation in motor vehicle accident death claims should include amount under conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses.
The court was dealing with a challenge to an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount under conventional heads.
Case Title: B.Vijay Kumar Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 15
The Telangana High Court reiterated that the dispute regarding non-refund of money is of civil nature. For criminal prosecution under the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, it has to be proved that the accused persons had an intention to cheat/deceive the victim from the inception and accused dishonestly misappropriated the property entrusted to them.
Case Title: Nasreen Sultana v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 16
The Telangana High Court, directed the Sub Registrars in the State to register the documents of sale, transfer, and gift etc. presented for registration even though it is not in authorized/approved layout.
The court also directed that if any violation of law such as plots/lands/structures being sold from part of Buffer Zone/Plots having less than 30 feet road width access etc is found, the Sub-Registrar shall make an endorsement informing/cautioning the purchasers that risk is involved in purchase of such plots; such transactions are hit by relevant statutory provisions.
The writ petitions were against various Sub-Registrars’ refusal to receive, process, register and release the sale deeds, gift deeds etc., presented by the petitioners on ground of Memos issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana.
Case Title: Basa Bagawantha Rao v. Vemumula Sulochana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 17
The Telangana High Court held that when there are concurrent findings of both lower Courts in a well-reasoned order, a Second Appeal is not maintainable without any substantial question of law.
The court was dealing with a property dispute in which the trial Court and the first appellate court decided against the petitioner.
Telangana High Court Sets Aside Injunction Against Kangana Ranaut's "Lock Upp Reality Show" Release
Case Title: Alt Digital Media Entertainment Limited (Alt balaji) v. Price Media & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 18
The Telangana High Court set aside the ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Court against releasing, exhibiting and publishing the series 'Lockupp reality show' starring Kangana Ranaut and made by Alt Balaji Media. As makers spent huge amounts of money this month for marketing and the public was aware of the release of the reality show on 27.02.2022, the balance of convenience lay in the favour of the makers of the show.
Case Title: M/s. Jupiter Industries v. Canara Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 19
The Telangana High Court opined that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised when the statutory remedy under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) has been invoked.
Case Title: N. Parvathalu v. APSRTC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 20
The Telangana High Court recently noted that the punishment of removal from service for the charges of unauthorized absence (merely 5 days in this case) was very harsh.
The Writ Petition had been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of removal from service and consequently to direct the petitioner to discharge his duties along with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages in the interest of justice and fair play.
Case Title: M. Raghunandan Rao & Ors. v. The Telangana Legislative Assembly & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 21
The Telangana High Court denied relief to BJP MLAs who sought stay on the operation of Telangana Legislative Assembly-respondent's action, suspending them from service for the rest of the ongoing Budget session of the Assembly.
A bench of Dr. Justice Shameem Akhtar, ruled,
"In view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of India, this Court has limitations to inquire into the proceedings of the Legislature while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of these circumstances, there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners to hold that the resolution suffers from substantial illegality and jurisdictional error. Further, the alleged unconstitutionality of the resolution also needs a detailed examination."
Case Title: Ch.Anjaneyulu, Medak Sangareddy v. The State Of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 22
The Telangana High Court recently observed that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating or criminal breach of trust.
The Bench of Justice G. Radha Rani further clarified that every breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of a mental act of fraudulent misappropriation.
Plea Before Telangana High Court Against 'The Kashmir Files' Film Dismissed As Withdrawn
Case Title: Mohammed Sami Ullah Qureshi v. The Government Of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 23
A plea moved before the Telangana High Court to challenge the release of the movie The Kashmir Files has been dismissed as withdrawn. The film directed by Vivek Agnihotri features well-known actors like Anupam Kher and Mithun Chakraborty released on March 11.
The plea moved before the Court challenged the making, releasing, and telecasting of certain 'objectionable' scenes in the film which, as per the plea, shows mass murders of Kashmiri Pandits by Muslims and exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir Insurgency.
Arbitral Award A Nullity If Passed Beyond Prescribed Period: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Roop Singh Bhatty and Ors. v. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 24
The Telangana High Court held that the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) are cast in mandatory terms and the mandate of the arbitrator terminates under Section 29A(4) after the expiry of the prescribed period, making the arbitrator functus-officio and the award passed by him a nullity.
The Bench, consisting of Justice P. Naveen Rao and Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, ruled that substitution of Section 29A(1) of the A&C Act by the Amendment Act of 2019, amending the time limit for making an award, does not operate retrospectively, and merely because the word substitution is used the amended provision does not relate back to the date of the original provision.
Case Title: Andela Eswaramma, R.R. District V. State Of A.P., Hyderabad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 25
The Telangana High Court has held that a person, whose title is in dispute, cannot invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings.
A division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili upheld a single judge order which held that once the title is in dispute and a reference has been made to the civil court to determine the ownership, a person, whose title is in dispute, cannot invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Act.
Case Title: Madiraju Radha Krishna Rao v. The Land Acquisition Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 26
The Telangana High Court enhanced the fixation of market value for a land owner whose land was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act and also allowed additional benefit of 12% per annum towards rent or damage for use and occupation of the land from the date of possession by Government till the notification passed by the Government.
Case Title: C. Chandra Mohan Reddy v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 27
The Telangana High Court refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction, stating that the petitioner had not exhausted its alternate remedy by filing an application before the Employees' Insurance Court for adjudication of disputed issues under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
Moreover, it noted that the writ petition was not filed for enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights nor there was any violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as notice was issued to the Petitioner for personal hearing.
Case Title: Mrs. Ragya Bee (deceased) and Others v. M/s. P.S.R. Constructions
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 28
The Telangana High Court has held that a Civil Court does not have the power to modify an arbitral award in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to set aside an arbitral award.
The Bench, consisting of Justice P. Naveen Rao and Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, ruled that execution proceedings are not maintainable with respect to the decision of a Civil Court in a petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Union of India, Rep. by Ministry of Railways v. Krishnapatnam Railway Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 29
The Telangana High Court has ruled that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot lie against an order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal in an application filed under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, if the challenges raised by the party go into the merits of the claim raised by the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal and not to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy, held that a party cannot seek the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to traverse into the merits of the claims raised by the claimant in the arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: Access Tough Doors P. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner ST
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 30
The Telangana High Court has held that the appellate and revisional authorities must judiciously exercise their discretionary power to grant a stay under the Telangana VAT Act.
A division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda, while staying the demand in terms of the assessment order, directed the petitioner to deposit twelve and a half percent of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days.
Case Title: Jonnagaddala Swathi v. L. Karthika Chakravarthy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 31
The Telangana High Court has recently ruled that even if the husband offers to pay the conveyance charges for the wife to appear for the family court hearings, if such an offer seems to have been made without bona fides, it can order for the case to be transferred to the Family Court near the residence of the wife.
Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy ruled that although it is settled that a wife can be compensated by the husband by paying conveyance charges, each case depends on its own facts and the principles laid in various precedents are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration In Absence Of Privity Of Contract: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Gagiri Hari Krishna v. M/s Jasper Industries Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 32
The Telangana High Court ruled that in the absence of a privity of contract parties cannot be referred to arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the word 'party' under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) has been given a definite meaning with respect to an arbitration agreement. The Court added that only the disputes between the signatories to an arbitration agreement can be referred to arbitration and a third party cannot be roped into arbitration in the absence of privity of contract.
Case Title: D.M., TSRTC v. Gollamandala Subba Raju Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 33
The Telangana High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal recently as it confirmed the reliefs granted by the Industrial Tribunal to a workman for wrongful termination of service. The reliefs were reinstatement of the workman into service with 50% back wages.
A workman was issued an order of punishment by disciplinary authority. The Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workman into service with 50% back wages vide award in 2005. The employer being aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal filed a Writ Petition and the award passed by the Tribunal was upheld.
The Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (2007) held that in cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was the normal rule. However, the adjudicating authority may have to also take into consideration the length of service of the workman, the nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employer and similar other factors while deciding the issue of back wages.
Case Title: M/s Prime Properties v. Mr. Alam Khan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 34
The Telangana High Court held that the impleadment of parties was not required in the case as the parties in impleadment applications were already being effectively represented in the suit for cancellation of Sale Deed.
Justice P. Sree Sudha held that undoubtedly a petition for impleadment of proper and necessary parties can be filed at any stage of proceedings but in the case on hand, the plot owners' welfare organization was representing on their behalf effectively and as such again each individual plot owner need not come on record by way of filing implead applications.
Case Title: M/S.United India Insurance Co Ltd V. Sri Rama Swamy & 2 Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 35
The Telangana high Court ruled that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation under Motor Vehicle Act if the vehicle at the time of accident was in breach of the terms and purpose of the insurance policy.
Justice P. Sree Sudha, in a case, noted that the deceased and injured were labourers, but they were not working with the owner of the Tractor and Trailor and there was no employer and employee relationship between them and that the accident had not occurred during the course of employment since the deceased and injured were returning after attending the labour work in a Tractor along with marriage party and then they met with an accident.
Therefore, it amounted to breach of terms and conditions of the policy and the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation.
Case Title: Nookala Venkateswarlu Died & Anr V. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
The Telangana High Cour held that Railway is not liable to compensate under Section 124A of the Railways Act if the passenger died due to own negligence in crossing the railway tracks.
Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy held that compensation will be granted only when a case of an "untoward incident" is made out.
"Oral evidence of the son of the deceased show that the accident was the result of the negligent act of crossing the tracks by the deceased. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation from the Railways," the Bench said.
Case Title: The National Stock Exchange of India Limited v. State of Telangana and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 37
The Telangana High Court ruled that the proceedings against Vikram Limaye & Priya Subbaraman in Anugrah Stock & Broking Case cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if the role played by them in the commission of the offence is unclear and the investigation is not completed. The power under Section 482 has to be sparingly used to quash FIR.
The court noted that there was prima facie large scale fraud involving many entities including NSE and their key managerial personnel. According to the Court, serious lapses were committed by the NSE in regulating trading activities of ASBPL. A case involving several factual issues which were supported by one side and disputed by another could be only decided during trial.
Case Title: K. Savya v. The Station House Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 38
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that inaction by the police in day-to-day activities cannot be decided in Writ Petition and a private complaint has to be filed. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed:
"Day in and day out, several writ petitions are being filed stating that the police are not conducting proper investigation and not filing the charge sheet nor they are arresting the accused. At any stretch of imagination, those issues cannot be decided by this Court while exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."
Case Title: Sultana Begum v. Sri Ahmed Hussain Shaik
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 39
The Telangana High Court recently awarded an enhanced compensation amount beyond what was claimed by the dependents of the deceased who died in the motor vehicle accident. It relied on Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2011) which held that competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident.
Case Title: M/s. M.S.R. Enterprises v. M/s. Pooja Enterprises
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 40
The Telangana High Court ruled that in proceedings for execution of an arbitral award the whole gamut of CPC is not attracted, and a Court while dealing with an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for enforcement of an award is not bound by the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and is not required to decide on the validity of the award before seeking its enforcement
The Bench, consisting of Justice P. Naveen Rao and Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, held that the term 'in accordance with the CPC' employed in Section 36 of the A&C Act cannot be read out of context or inconsistent with the rest of the sections of the A&C Act. The Court added application of Section 47 of CPC would leave Section 34 of the A&C Act redundant and it will be inconsistent with the scheme of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Veldana Srilatha v. Gundumalla Anantha Reddy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 41
The Telangana High Court recently observed that the sanctity of judicial proceedings is paramount to a society governed by law. Otherwise, the very edifice of democracy breaks, and anarchy reigns. A Division Bench of Justices P. Naveen Rao and M.G. Priyadarsini noted that,
"To hold a person guilty of civil contempt 'wilful disobedience' is an indispensable requirement. Whether the conduct of contemnor is deliberate and wilful can be considered by assessing the material on record and attendant circumstances."
Relying on Anil Ratak Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh and other cases, the Court noted that there could be no laxity, as otherwise, orders of the court would be the subject of mockery. "Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests," it added.
Case Title: APR Jewellers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 42
The Telangana High Court held that the CIT (A) is a quasi-judicial authority and is not bound by the administrative circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
The division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda has remanded the matter back to the CIT (A) for a fresh decision on the prayer for stay of the petitioner in accordance with law after complying with the principles of natural justice.
Arbitral Award Must Be In Accordance With The Terms Of The Contract: Reiterates Telangana High Court
Case Title: C. Srimannarayana v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, SECBAD and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 43
The Telangana High Court reiterated that an arbitral award must be in accordance with the terms of the contract.
The Bench, consisting of Justice P. Naveen Rao and Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, quashed an arbitral award on the ground that the clauses of the contract were not properly construed by the Arbitrator and that it was a non-speaking order which was rendered without discussing the contentions raised by the claimant.
Case Title: A. Kaluram v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 44
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of Telangana High Court directed the police to comply with the requirement of issue of Section 41-A notice under Criminal Procedure Code as the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged was up to seven years. Section 41A is the notice of appearance before police officer in all the cases where the arrest of a person is not required.
Case Title: Vakalapudi Yugandhar v. The State Of Telangana And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 45
The Telangana High Court permitted a petitioner, accused under Section 498-A IPC, to travel abroad to pursue his employment subject to executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh before the trial Court and offering bank guarantee for the said amount before the departure.
"It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to return to India within the stipulated time, the personal bond and bank guarantee/FDR offered by the petitioner shall stand forfeited in favour of State Government without any notice."
Case Title: C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 46
the Telangana High Court ruled that accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC if the charge sheet is not submitted in terms of Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C without completion of investigation. Justice K. Lakshman held that:
"At the cost of repetition, this Court holds that the complaint dated 19.03.2022 was not a final complaint based on which cognizance could have been taken. A complaint/report cannot be treated as final report unless the investigation is completed, In the present case, the investigation is admittedly not completed and the statutory period of sixty days expired on 21.03.2022. Therefore, in the absence of complete investigation and absence of filing a final complaint, the Petitioner is entitled for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C."
Case Title: Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy v. Mr. A. R. Srinivas and 3 others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
the Telangana High Court sentenced an IPS Officer and three police officers to 4 weeks of imprisonment in a contempt case. Justice G. Radha Rani ruled:
In the present case, the contemnors had violated the direction of the Court for issuing notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case. Violations, which are likely to infringe upon the faith of the public in the administration of justice and the court system must be punished, to prevent repetition of such behaviour and the adverse impact on public faith. Contempt proceedings are initiated to ensure compliance with the orders of the Court and adherence to the rule of law. The directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court are binding and must be obeyed by all concerned in strict sense.
Case Title: M/s BPR Infrastructure Limited v. M/s. RITES Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 48
The Telangana High Court has ruled that the issue whether a no claim certificate furnished by a party to its employer was under compulsion or duress, or whether the said no claim certificate is valid, which would discharge the contract and debar the party from raising further claims, is an arbitrable dispute.
The Single Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. M/s. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Limited (2021), the Court is only required to examine whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The Court ruled that since the claim made by the party was not a deadwood, the dispute could be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. M/s. A.A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 49
The Telangana High Court has ruled that if a dispute constitutes a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2 (1) (c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the dispute is the subject matter of a domestic arbitration whose 'Specified Value' is more than Rs. One Crore, then an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) would lie only before the Commercial Court and not before the Civil Court.
The Bench, consisting of Justices P. Naveen Rao and Sambasivarao Naidu, held that to treat an immovable property as 'used' for commercial purposes, so as to fall within the ambit of Section 2 (1) (c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, it is not necessary that the present lessee should commence commercial operations in the said property. The Court added that it was sufficient if the immovable property was already put to use for commercial purposes by someone else.
Case Title: M/s. India Media Services Pvt Ltd. v. M/s. SBPL Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 50
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), only the Court where an application under Section 9 and/or Section 34 has been filed would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for enforcement of the arbitral award.
The Bench, consisting of Justices P. Naveen Rao and Sambasivarao Naidu, held that Section 42 of the A&C Act opens with a non-obstante clause and, therefore, even though an arbitral award is treated as a 'decree in fiction' by a Civil Court, Section 42 of the A&C Act would cover within its ambit all provisions dealing with execution of an award.
Case Title: Sumana Paruchuri v. Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 51
Telangana High Court ruled that a private complaint for fraud under Section 447 of Companies Act, 2013 is not maintainable before the Special Court. Section 212(6) of the Companies Act ensures that prosecution for fraud can only be launched after due investigation. This provides a safeguard against frivolous complaints from millions of shareholders of various companies.
"If the contention of the complainant that any shareholder can file a complaint for fraud is accepted, it would open flood gates for any person commencing criminal proceedings merely by filing a complaint."
Case Title: Naveen P Malvay v. Samskruthi Shelters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 52
The Telangana High Court held that having regards to the object of the A&C Act, the delay of 435 days in filing an appeal is too long to exercise discretion.
The Division Bench of Justice P. Naveen Rao dismissed an appeal that was filed after a long delay of 435 days on the ground that no sufficient reason is assigned for delay in filing appeal. It held that when the delay is long, a heavy burden is placed on the applicant to give cogent reasons to satisfy the court for condonation of delay.
The Court further held that the cause of action for filing an appeal arises on the date of impugned order and not when some adverse action is taken by the opposite party.
Case Title: Terra Infra Development Ltd. v. NCC Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 53
The Telangana High Court has held that the parties cannot be said to be negotiating when the respondent did not reply to the letters of the applicant and the period of limitation for invoking arbitration would not be extended in such a scenario.
The Single Bench of Justice K. Lakshman held that the period of limitation would begin to run when the liability to pay is disputed by a party and mere writing of letters and correspondences will not extend the limitation period.
The Court further held that merely because a party has appointed its nominee arbitrator it does not amount to accepting that there is an arbitral dispute when the appointment was made without prejudice to its right to object to the limitation of the applicant claims.
Place Of Residence Of The Arbitrator Would Not Be The Seat Of Arbitration: Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/s S. Square Infra v. Garneni Chalapathi Rao
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 54
The High Court of Telangana held that the place of residence of the arbitrator would not determine the seat of arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice P. Sree Sudha held that merely because an arbitrator residing in Hyderabad has been appointed, it would not mean that only the Courts at Hyderabad would have the jurisdiction to decide all the matters arising out of arbitration agreement.
Case Title: Yeddandi Venkataiah v. M/s.Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
The Telangana High Court held that Beedi workers are "workmen" under Section 2(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act. Justice M. Laxman further held that rolling of Beedies is a "manufacturing process" and hence a Beedi roller is a workman under the Act.
Case Title: M/s Rashmi Metaliks Limited v. M/s Techno Unique Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
The Telangana High Court reiterated that an Execution Petition for enforcement of an arbitral award can be filed in any court at any place in the country. However, the High Court added that the said court must have the jurisdiction to execute the award, which would depend on the award debtor and its location.
The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili, held that even if the properties sought to be attached are outside the territorial jurisdiction of a Commercial Court, a petition under Order 21 Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for attachment of the property can be filed.
Case Title: Garikapati Venkateswara Rao v. Union of India & ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 57
Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a personal guarantor to lift the travel ban as amount of Rs. 226.02 crores was outstanding to a public sector bank.
Justice G. Radha Rani held:
"In the present case a public sector bank had made request for issuance of LOC as huge amount of Rs.226.02 Crores was due and the petitioner had given a personal guarantee to the said outstanding amount."
Case Title: M/s. The AGA Khan Academy v. Assistant PF Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 58
The Telangana High Court in a Writ Petition ruled that an order cannot be passed under Section 7C of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF act) for determination of escaped amount unless the employer is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case
Justice G. Radha Rani observed,
"Section 7C mandates that the employer shall be given reasonable opportunity of representing his case before redetermining the amount due from him. The word used is "shall". But, as seen from the record, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner for representing his case before issuing proceedings under Section 7C of the Act. He was not given an opportunity to submit his objection with regard to initiation of proceedings under Section 7C of the Act."
Case Title: The State of Telangana v. Konyala Vijaya Kumar and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
The Telangana High Court refused to apply presumption of abetment against a man whose wife committed suicide after 17 years of marriage.
Justice K. Surender observed:
"When there are no specific allegations in the background of the 1st respondent/A1 taking care of the deceased in all respects as admitted by P.Ws.1 to 3, it cannot be said that only for the reason of the deceased committing suicide, presumption has to be drawn against the respondents that they have abetted suicide. The said argument has no basis in the background of the case and also the deceased committing suicide in the year 17th year of marriage."
Court also said that the initial burden is always on the prosecution to make out its case and it cannot solely rest upon the death being unnatural/suicidal and asking the Court to draw an inference of abetment. In the absence of any specific allegations, death cannot in any manner be a ground to reverse the well reasoned order of acquittal.
Case Title: K. Satyanarayana Reddy v. P. Dayanand Reddy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 60
The Telangana High Court upheld an order passed by the Executing Court directing removal of illegal structures raised in the suit schedule property after passing of a decree for specific performance, ordering delivery of possession, in favour of the defendants/ decree holders.
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed that decree for specific performance cannot be frustrated in such manner and that the civil court has the power to grant ancillary reliefs to give full effect to the decree.
Case Title: The Drugs Inspector v. Chippa Thirupathi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 61
The Telangana High Court observed that a complainant under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is duty bound to prove the "exclusive possession" of premises by the accused where drugs have been found.
The Observation came from Justice K. Surender
"It is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent/accused regarding the exclusive possession of the premises, failing which, the prosecution fails in the back ground of the respondent/accused totally denying any knowledge about the premises and the drugs seized. When there is no corroboration by oral or documentary evidence, to support the version of P.W.1 that drugs were seized from the possession of the respondent/accused in his premises, PW1's version cannot be believed."
The Court was hearing an appeal against the acquittal of the sole respondent, the State preferred the present appeal. The respondent was charged for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for contravention of Sections 18(c), 18(A) and 22(1)(cca) of the Act
Case Title: Bolusani Gowri Shankar v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 62
The Telangana High Court recently set aside notices served to pattadars by government authorities, asking them to stop de-casting of lands on the alleged ground that the subject lands were falling in Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ).
Referring to the Guidelines issued for declaration of Eco Sensitive Zones, Justice G. Radha Rani observed:
"Commercial mining is shown as prohibited activity but ongoing agricultural and horticulture practises by local communities was shown as permitted category of activity as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India. Hence, de-casting of sand in the patta lands cannot be considered as a commercial mining activity, but an activity to make use of the land fit for agriculture by the local communities. As such, it is a permitted activity to be conducted within Eco Sensitive Zone as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India for declaration of Eco Sensitive Zone around the National Parks and Wild Life Sanctuaries."
Case Title: The State of Telangana v. Dasari Murali
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 63
The Telangana High Court has made it clear that a married woman, wilfully cohabitating with another man, cannot prosecute him for Rape on his refusal to marry her. Justice K. Surender observed,
"When there is a subsisting marriage, the question of respondent/accused marrying P.W.1 would not arise for the reason of such marriage being an offence punishable for bigamy and invalid...The physical relation amongst P.W.1 and the respondent/accused being one of consent, the question of rape does not arise."
The Court was hearing an appeal challening the Respondent's acquittal for offences under Section 417, 376 and 506 of IPC by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities Against Women.
Case Title: K.Rattaiah @ Ratnaji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 64
Telangana High Court has recently observed that if a woman herself doesn't perceive the act of 'catching hold of her hand' as invading her decency, then such an act on part of an accused would not attract the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC.
Section 354 IPC penalizes acts of assault or criminal force to woman with "intent" to outrage her modesty.
Justice K. Surender observed:
"In the present facts and circumstances of the case, since P.W.1 herself did not perceive the act of catching hold of her hand as invading her decency as a woman, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are made out to sustain the conviction."
Case Title: M/s Ani Technologies Private Limited v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 65
The Telangana High Court ruled that, while the department referred to Section12(9) of the IGST Act, the department erroneously recorded that, in the instance of an unregistered receiver, the place of supply should be the recipient's location. It prima facie appears to be in contravention of Section 12(9) of the IGST Act.
The division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda said, "it is prima facie evident that if the passenger is not registered under GST and avails transportation service, by way of legal fiction, the place of supply would be the place where the passenger embarks or starts his journey."
M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works and others v. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad, and others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 66
The Telangana High Court held that the Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 is unconstitutional.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice P. Madhavi Devi has observed that the intention of Parliament in ushering in the GST regime through the Constitution Amendment Act, enactment of the CGST Act and simultaneous enactment of various State GST Acts by the State Legislatures was to avoid a multiplicity of taxes by subsuming those indirect taxes into a single tax called GST. However, the amendments brought in by the Second Amendment Act were wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Constitution Amendment Act read with the CGST Act and the TGST Act.
Case Title: Vanka Rajesh Raju v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 67
The Telangana High Court reiterated that the defense that acts of physical relationship was consensual between the accused and victim girl cannot be considered where the age of the girl was below 18 years.
Stating thus, a single bench of Justice K. Surender dismissed an appeal challenging conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 5(1) r/w 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act and Section 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) and 376 (punishment for rape) of IPC.
Case Title: Guda Mahender v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 68
Telangana High Court ruled that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused under the POCSO Act, if the age of the victim girl cannot be proved by prosecution to be below 18 years of age.
'Necessary Steps Being Taken': Telangana High Court On PIL To Make Environmental Science A Compulsory Subject At School & University
Case Title: T Dhangopal Rao V. Chief Secy., Hyd., Tg
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
The Telangana High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking a direction to the respondent-State to make Environmental Science a compulsory subject.
"We accept on principle that through the medium of education awareness of the environment and its problems related to pollution should be taught as a compulsory subject. Learned Attorney-General pointed out to us that the Central Government is associated with education at the higher levels and the University Grants Commission can monitor only the undergraduate and post-graduate studies. The rest of it, according to him, is a State subject. He has agreed that the University Grants Commission will take appropriate steps immediately to give effect to what we have said, i.e., requiring the Universities to prescribe a course on environment. They would consider the feasibility of making this a compulsory subject at every level in college education. So far as education up to the college level is concerned, we would require every State Government and every Education Board connected with education up to the matriculation stage or even intermediate colleges to immediately take steps to enforce compulsory education on environment in a graded way," the order stated.
Every State government and every education board connected with education upto matriculation or even intermediate level was directed to take steps to enforce compulsory education on environment in a graded way.
Case Title: Mekala Shiva v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 70
the Telangana High Court overturned the POCSO conviction as the age of the victim girl could be above 18 years of age on applying the margin of error to the age determined by doctor on radiological/ossification examination. Justice K. Surender relied on Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of J&K (1982), in which the Supreme Court had observed that one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years either side. Applying the judgment regarding margin of error, if it is accepted that he victim is 16 years of age, adding two years to it, victim would be more than 18 years.
In the said circumstances, there was no conclusive proof regarding the age of victim. Thus, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant as prosecution failed to prove the age of victim girl. The appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Veeraboina Yadaiah v. Ramakanth Dande
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 71
The Telangana High Court ruled since it was impossible for a party to fulfil its obligations under an agreement, in view of the doctrine of frustration, the parties cannot be referred to arbitration, despite the presence of an arbitration clause.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that though the lease deed between the parties contained an arbitration clause, however, judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the pandemic had broken out in the relevant period under consideration, and hence, it was impossible for the tenant to have paid the rent during the said period. Thus, the Court ruled that it was not a fit case where the parties should be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: Ganta Sudheer Kumar v. T Nagi Reddy, Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 72
The Telangana High Court observed that disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. However, such action should not be initiated unless a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, arises.
The observation came from Justice P. Naveen Rao:
"Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests...Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority."
Case Title: K. Suresh Kaushik v. State Bank of Hyderabad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 73
The Telangana High Court dismissed a Writ petition filed by a delinquent employee arguing that once the Enquiry Officer had found no materia against him, the Disciplinary Authority cannot differ with the finding of the Enquiry authority.
Justice G. Sri Devi observed,
"The final decision rests with the disciplinary/punishing authority which can come to its own conclusions, bearing in mind the views expressed by Enquiry Officer. It is also well settled that the disciplinary authority in order to differ with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it need not give reasons to contest the correctness of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. What is necessary is that the disciplinary authority should record the findings having support of materials and evidence on record."
Case Title: M.A. Mahaboob v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
The Telangana High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by an employee of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, challenging his 'premature' retirement and seeking reinstatement into service along with all consequential benefits.
Justice P.Madhavi Devi observed that alteration of date of birth by employer in service records of the employee, when he is at verge of his retirement is not permissible.
Case Title: Prakash Singh v. The Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 75
The Telangana High Court observed that judicial review by the Court in contractual matters is very limited and unless malafides and arbitrariness was shown, the Court could not interfere with the administrative action.
The observation came from Justice G. Radha Rani in a writ petition challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the Notice inviting e-Tender on the basis of the booking receipt of the respective category of trucks obtained from the authorized dealer.
Case Title: Ganta Narender v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 76
The Telangana High Court recently overturned a conviction in a case related to section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 while observing that assumptions, presumptions and fanciful thinking cannot be made basis to arrive at conclusions in a criminal case.
The observation came from Justice K. Surender who noted that when the eye-witnesses had last seen the deceased alone at her house, whereafter she was found dead, and their statements were not controverted, it was unwarranted to convict the deceased's husband for culpable homicide.
It reiterated that in all the cases of circumstantial evidence, when the prosecution fails to prove the complete chain of events, the accused would be entitled to acquittal.
Case Title: Tata Consumer Products Limited and another v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
The Telangana High Court observed that though Registration Act 1908 makes it imperative to present an instrument for registration within four months from the date of its execution, no time is fixed within which a deed presented and accepted for registration must be registered.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar further observed that in terms of Section 23 of the Act, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented to the Registering Authority within four months from the date of its execution.
Case Title: P. Rajeshwari And Another v. The State Of A.P. Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 78
Taking a serious view of the trend of false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, the Telangana High Court recently observed that, the false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes based on general and omnibus allegations, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.
With this, the bench of Justice A. Santosh Reddy ordered to quash further proceedings against the mother-in-law/A2, brother-in-law/A3 (husband's brother), and sister-in-law/A4 (wife of husband's brother) of a woman, who had leveled allegations of harassing her for dowry [booked u/s 498-A IPC and S. 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act].
Case Title: Baba Sow Chandekar & another v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
The Telangana High Court observed that Standing Orders with respect to sampling and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be flouted and in the absence of substantial compliance of the Standing Orders, adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution.
The observation came in a case pertaining to recovery of 214 kgs Ganja in 107 packets from two vehicles. Justice K. Surender noted that while drawing samples from the seized contraband, the investigating authority failed to specify as to from whom the said sample of Ganja was taken as 55 packets were seized from the 1st petitioner/A1 40 packets were seized from the 2nd petitioner/A2, 12 packets were seized from A10.
Case Title: D. Ravinder Reddy v. Smt. C. Geethanjali
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 80
The Telangana High Court observed that existence of a "Contingent Contract" cannot be decided in the limited jurisdiction of Courts under Section 11 of Arbitration Act.
Justice K. Lakshman, placing reliance on Supreme Court decision in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) observed that the scope of interference by the Courts under Section 11 of Arbitration Act is extremely limited.
"The court should refer a matter if the validity of the arbitration agreement cannot be determined on a prima facie basis, as laid down above i.e. "when in doubt, do refer".
Case Title: Madeenam Raju v. B. Sainath and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 81
The Telangana High Court recently disallowed compensation under the head of parental consortium to a 50 years old claimant in a Motor accident death case, stating that he was not a "child". Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy observed that the claimant is aged 50 years and as such, he cannot be entitled for parental consortium.
On this ground, the compensation under the head of parental consortium was denied but the appeal was allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4,06,400/- under other heads with costs and interests at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Sri Agpa Pharmaceuticals
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 82
The Telangana High Court held that an offence of manufacture of substandard quality of drug can only be tried by the Court in whose jurisdiction the sale has taken place. The place where sample has been obtained by drug inspector cannot be the jurisdiction of trial under Section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code.
Case Title: ITC Limited- International Business v. Wide Ocean Shipping Service Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 83
The Telangana High Court ruled that where the Arbitral Tribunal has passed a foreign arbitral award after denying the request of a party for oral hearing, the said arbitral award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law as it is in conflict with the basic notions of justice and hence, it cannot be enforced in India.
The Bench, consisting of Justices P. Naveen Rao and Sambasivarao Naidu, held that a person has a right of fair hearing and that a request for oral hearing cannot be refused by the Arbitral Tribunal merely on the ground that the claims involved are modest. The Court added that what is important is not the quantum of amount involved but the impact that an arbitral award would have on the business transactions and relationships of the award debtor.
Case Title: Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, v. Central Bureau Of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 84
In a relief to Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, the Telangana High Court has exempted him from personal appearance before the Court in a series of corruption cases filed against him by the CBI in the year 2013.
However, he has been directed to appear before the Court on such dates of the hearing where the CBI court decides that his presence is required in accordance with subsection (2) of Section 205 of the CrPC.
With this, the bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside an order of the CBI Court passed in 2019 rejecting Jagan's plea seeking exemption from personal appearance.
The Court disagreed with the observation made by the Principal Special Judge, CBI Court, Hyderabad that in criminal proceedings trial should be conducted in presence of the accused, and therefore, Jagan's request for exemption from personal appearance should not be considered.
Case Title: M/s. Srico Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 85
The Telangana High Court held that the investigation post-filing of the application would not debar the applicant from seeking an advance ruling.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyana and Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy has observed that the word "proceedings" has neither been defined in Chapter XVII nor in the definition clause, i.e., in Section 2 of the CGST Act. The inquiry or investigation would not come within the ambit of the word "proceedings".
Case Title: Chityala Srinivas Srinu v. The State Of A.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 86
The Telangana High Court altered the conviction of an accused from punishment of Murder under Section 302 IPC to Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of IPC as from the record of prosecution, the offence was committed in a heat of sudden passion in highly inebriated (involuntary) stage.
A bench of Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy and Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy observed,
"Evidence and fact situation would lead to the one and only irresistible conclusion that A.1 had no knowledge and he is deprived of self-control, as he was in involuntary inebriated condition, in a fit of anger, poured kerosene, pushed the lamp, thereby the deceased sustained burn injuries...would only establish the essentials for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and not under Section 302 IPC against A.1."
Case Title: M/s Sawera Township India Private Limited v. Faisal Bin Tirif
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 87
The Telangana High Court ruled that in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Court cannot, on the ground of collusion, refuse to appoint the arbitrator as specified in the arbitration clause and appoint a substitute arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice K. Lakshman held that the allegations regarding any collusion between the specified arbitrator and the opposite party cannot be decided in an application filed under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The Court added that a party cannot seek appointment of a substitute arbitrator on mere allegations of collusion.
ITC Refund Admissible If Output Supply Tax Rate Is Less Than Inputs Tax Rate: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Micro Systems And Services Sole Proprietorship v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 88
The Telangana High Court held that refund of accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on account of inverted structure would be allowed if accumulation of ITC is on account of the rate of tax on output supply being less than the rate of tax on inputs (same goods) at the same point of time as per some concessional notification issued by the government providing for a lower rate of tax for some specified supplies subject to fulfilment of other conditions.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy set aside the order rejecting the refund and the matter was remanded back for re-consideration in terms of the Circular dated 06.07.2022.
Case Title: Md. Afroz Baig v. State Bank of India, Mumbai, and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 89
The Telangana High Court made it clear that in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, a writ court can extend the period mentioned for payment under 'One Time Settlement' scheme arranged by the Bank, if satisfied with the circumstances mentioned by the defaulter.
"In the present case, it is specifically contended by the petitioner that he is doing real estate business, due to the present COVID-19 pandemic situation, he sustained loss. However, to clear the loan, he sold the property and received money from the purchaser and deposited the same in the account and paid the entire loan amount including the interest vide his letter dated 28.07.2021. There is only one day delay. Therefore, according to this Court, it is a fit case to extend the time to the petitioner to repay the loan amount," Justice K Lakshman observed in the facts of the case
Case Title: Goli Sai Koti Vali Prabhu v. The State of Telangana & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 90
Directing the police to withdraw a look out circular against a man, who is an accused in a domestic violence case, the Telangana High Court said there was no basis for continuing the LOC after issuance of Section 41-A CrPC notice and the subsequent filing of chargesheet.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti said the Director General of Police, on the basis of the orders passed previously by the court, has already issued a circular instructing that whenever Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice is issued or whenever the bail is obtained by the accused, concerned police shall address a letter to the Commissioner and the Commissioner in turn shall address a letter to the Immigration Authorities to close the LOC.
Case Title: Ms. Kanumuru Rama Devi v. M/s REC Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 91
The High Court of Telangana Bench comprising of Justice K. Lakshman, in the matter of Ms. Kanumuru Rama Devi v M/s REC Limited, held that as per Clause 3(a) of the RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dated 01.07.2015, the First Committee is not obligated to disclose its formation and composition in its order. Further, the CGM (Law) can be authorized on behalf of Lender Bank to sign and issue the order on behalf of First Committee.
Case Title: Netflix Entertainment Service India LLP v. Byrraju Ramalinga Raju
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 92
The Telangana High Court passed orders directing the City Civil Court, Hyderabad to decide on the issue of airing Netflix's episode on Satyam Computers' B Ramalinga Raju in its documentary series 'Bad Boy Billionaires – India.'
The Court was dealing with Netflix's appeal against the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad granting ad-interim injunction in favour of Raju and restraining the platform from streaming series using his name/ image/ reference. The Court had also placed an injunction on the trailer released thereof.
Case Title: M/s Hyderabad Restro Lounges Association v. Jubilee Hills Residents Clean and Green Association
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 93
In an appeal challenging a single bench's decision banning the playing of music in all pubs after 10 PM, the Telangana High Court said the interim directions passed by the single judge in September will apply only to 10 pubs in the greater Jubilee Hills area against which complaints were made by residents.
The single bench on September 12 had issued a slew of general directions to the police in Hyderabad, Cyberabad and Rachakonda in petitions filed by a group of locals and the Jubilee Hills Residents (Clean and Green) Association against alleged inaction of State authorities in not taking action against pubs in residential areas.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy said the interim directions have gone beyond the grievance expressed by the writ petitioners and also have affected other establishments against whom no grievance was made and who were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings.
Case Title: T. Usha Bhai v. State of Telangana and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 94
The Telangana High Court ordered suspended BJP MLA Raja Singh's release from the preventive detention.
The government had ordered his preventive detention soon after he was released on bail in August in a criminal case accusing him of making derogatory remarks against the Prophet Mohammad in a video posted on the social media.
Setting aside the detention order, the division bench of Justice A. Abhishek Reddy and Justice Juvvadi Sridevi restrained Singh from participating or holding any celebratory rallies or meeting after his release.
TRS MLAs Poaching Case: Telangana High Court Grants Bail To Three Accused
Case Title: Kore Nandu Kumar v. The State of Telangana along with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
The Telangana High Court granted bail to three accused in connection with the alleged TRS MLAs poaching case, and directed them to appear before the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which is probing the case, every Monday.
While granting them bail, the bench of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha took into account the fact that the accused have been in judicial custody for over a month and that the material part of the investigation is almost over. The Court also directed them to furnish bail bonds of ₹ 3 lakh each along with two sureties of the same amount.
The accused, who have been booked under relevant sections of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are - Ramachandra Bharti, Kore Nandu Kumar and D. P. S. K. V. N. Simhayaji. They have been accused of offering Rs 100 crore to a TRS MLA/Informant asking him to leave the TRS and contest as a BJP candidate in the next Assembly election
Case Title: K.RAJKUMAR v. THE STATE OF A.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 96
the Telangana High Court upheld the conviction of a husband under section 498A of Indian Penal Code despite there being contradictions in the dying declarations as there were consistent statements about abuse and cruelty committed on the wife in all the dying declarations.
"Both these statements are consistent with regard to the quarrel ensued between the deceased and A1 and that he came in drunken condition, abused her and came upon to beat her. Unable to bear the same, she poured kerosene oil from the stove on her body and set herself ablaze, which is sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. Even after removing the exaggerations, the statement of the deceased in Exs.P4 and P11 is consistent with regard to the harassment and cruelty met by her in the hands of A1 which drove her to commit suicide. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the trial court in coming to the conclusion about the guilt of the Accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC."
Case Title: N.R Indira v. The State of Telangana and 3 others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 97
The Telangana High Court held that the pension and gratuity amounts of a retired employee cannot be attached for satisfaction of a decree of any Court.
Justice P. Madhavi Devi relied on the Supreme Court decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank wherein it was held that "the pension and gratuity of the Petitioner cannot be attached and cannot be withheld for appropriation of a decree of any Civil Court."
The court observed that in clause (g) to Section 60(1) of CPC (Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree), the pension and gratuity amounts of a retired employee cannot be attached for satisfaction of a decree of any Court.
Hence, the Court directed the Respondent to pay the entire amount of pension and gratuity as eligible. However, it was made clear that Petitioner would not be entitled for payment towards encashment of leave as it is not exempted from attachment under Section 60 CPC.
No Borrower Has Right To Grant Of One Time Settlement Scheme: Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/s.Rajeshwara Rings Private Limited v. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Telangana Division
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 98
The Telangana High Court relying on decision of Apex Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor v. Meenal Agarwal, (2021) ruled that Banks have the freedom to accept or reject One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposals as per their commercial wisdom.
"No bank can be compelled to accept a lesser amount under the One Time Settlement scheme despite a bank is able to conduct auction, to secure property or mortgage property and no borrower as a matter of right pray for grant One Time Settlement scheme."
Case Title: Donepudi Sandhya C. Sandhya v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 99
The Telangana High Court has made it clear that it cannot grant Police aid in civil disputes unless there is a threat to peace and tranquility.
"In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not made out any case of emergent situation warranting indulgence of this Court for grant of police aid. Unless some material is placed before this Court to demonstrate that the unofficial respondents have acted in contravention of law, have acted highhandedly and that there is breach of peace and tranquility, normally, this Court would not interfere in civil disputes."
Case Title: Trisha Chandran v. The Superintendent, Cherlapally Central Prison & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 100
The Telangana High Court directed Cherlapally Central Prison to remove two death row inmates from solitary confinement and permit their movement within jail by treating them equally with other prisoners.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti said the prisoners shall be provided to all facilities like the other prisoners.
The bench further said the right to live with human dignity is a right guaranteed under the Constitution of India to all its citizens and it will also apply to the prisoners. Just because they are prisoners, they cannot be put to any kind of inhumane treatment, it added.
However, Justice Kanneganti clarified that if the behaviour of the convict is such which may have led the authorities to keep him in solitary confinement by way of a punishment, it stands on a different footing.
Case Title: Bharatiya Janata Party & Ors v State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 101
Noting that the State CM, K. Chandrashekar Rao himself branded the accused in the BRS MLA Poaching case as conspirators and therefore, it can’t be said that SIT probe is being done in an unbiased and fair manner, the Telangana High Court transferred the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Importantly, in its 98-page order, the Court made a categorical statement that in the political tussle between the BJP and the TRS Party, the Constitutional and statutory rights of the accused seem to have been forgotten.
The bench of Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy made these observations while dissolving the Special Investigation Team (SIT) which was probing the case till now and ordered the CBI to conduct a de novo probe into the matter.
In its order, the court noted that the SIT in the case was constituted to cover up the lapses of the investigation officers, however, since the CM of the State had made public the investigation CDs / material, the same would cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused about the fair and unbiased investigation, giving the court a reason to transfer the probe.
Case Title: Bharatiya Prani Mitra Sangh v. State Of Telangana And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 102
The Telangana High Court asked the state government to provide adequate funds to the goshalas through the State Animal Welfare Board by stressing that it is primarily the executive function of the State to look after and maintain goshalas.
The bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice C. V. Bhaskar Reddy passed this order on a PIL plea filed by Bharatiya Prani Mitra Sangh seeking a direction to the state government to make provision for green grass, feed, and fodder besides medicines for the cows and other animals housed in the state goshalas and to allocate funds for the goshalas.
