AP HC JUDGEMENTS 2022 DIGEST ≈ PK ≈

Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (AP )1- 137 ]
Shaik Gouse Peer v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 1
T. Mahaboob Basha Versus Dowlath Bee 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 2
Marri Gopi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 3
Smt. Peddisetti Anitha Sree @ Yenepalli Anitha Sree v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
2022 LiveLaw (AP) 4
Thammisetti Narasimha Rao Versus The State of AP 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 5
Amoda Iron Steel Limited v. Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 6
K Ravi Prasad Reddy v. G Giridhar 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 7
Attal Plastics v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 8
Chalasani Padma Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 9
Guduridheeraj Kumar Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 10
Balina Srimannarayana Versus S.R.R.Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 11
M Rama Chandraiah Versus Valleupu China Ankaiah 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 12
Devu Poojitha Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 13
Murarisetty Sai Baba Versus Ommina China Eswaraiah 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 14
Vegulla Leela Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 15
Polu Venkata Lakshmamma & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw
(AP) 16
Smt. H. Malleswaramma v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 17
Bikka Parvathi v. State represented by the Public Prosecutor 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 18
Gangisetty Anuradha v. Bijala Subramanyam 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 19

Vaddu Lakshmidevamma @ Lakshmi Devi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh 2022
LiveLaw (AP) 20
K V Krishnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 21
Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi and 2 others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022
LiveLaw (AP) 22
VINTI RAMAKRISHNA, W.G.DIST. & ORS v. P.P., HYD 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 23
D. Vidya Sagar v. Union of India and 4 other 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 24
Mangalagiri Textile Mills v. State Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 25
Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022

LiveLaw (AP) 26
Blineni Rajagopal Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2022 LiveLaw
(AP) 27
Karukola Vasudevarao v. Karri Suseelamma & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 28
Chaitanya Godavri Grameena Bank, Guntur v. K. Ravi Kumari 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 29
V.Manjula Versus v. Jagadish 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 30
Kommineni Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 31
M. Mohanraj v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 32
Kathupalli Venkata Sowmya Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP)
33
Gudimetla Srinivasulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 34
Ali Cotton Mill v. Appellate Joint Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 35
Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust Versus The State of
Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 36
Chepala Appala Raju v. State ofAndhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 37
M/s. Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd. VersusDhiren Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 38
Ravi Ramesh Babu VersusThe State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 39
S Muragan @ Muruga Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 40
A. Satyanarayana, Versus M. Panduranga Rao 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 41
K Prabhakar Reddy VersusLakkaraja Munirathnam 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 42
Dommeti Chakradhar Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 43
Geddam Bullayya Versus TheState Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 44
N. Srinath Reddy Versus Stateof Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 45
N. Gopinath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 46
Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw
(AP) 47
Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 48
M/s. Sree Constructions, v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 49
Dommaraju Vinay v. The State of A.P., 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 50
Pedapudi Alfred Johnson Jeyakaran Jesudasan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022
LiveLaw (AP) 51
Gadda Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 52
Byalla Devadas v.Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 53
Raju Jat Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 54
CY. Pratap Reddy v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 55
N. Appa Rao v. The State Of AP, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 56
Dinesh @ Dinesh v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 57
Karampudi Vijay Pal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 58
Nandurkar Satish Dowlathrao V. State Rep By The Public Prosecutor, 2022 LiveLaw
(AP) 59
Arun Kumar Mahipal Singh v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 60
Edhellacheruvu Balarami Reddy v. Edhellacheruvu Munaswamy Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw

(AP) 61
Gampala Naga Raju v. Shaik Nazeerunnisa, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 62
Sunkara Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 63
Maroju Vaikunta Balabji @ Balaji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP)
64
Uggina Nagamani Versus Kona Persisurani, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 65
Chelluboyina. Nagaraju v. Molleti Ramudu alias Vijayalakshmi, 2022 LiveLaw (AP)

66
M/s. Mobile and Movie World v. Sri Ghulam Abbas Khurasani, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 67
Ajay Kumar Parasaramka v. Pradeep Kumar Rath, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 68
G.P. Hemakoti Reddy, Ananthapur Dist. v. P.P., Hyd, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 69
Mara Manohar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 70
Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw
(AP) 71
G.Ramesh Babu, Chittoor Dt., v. The State Of Ap., Rep Pp And 3 Ors, 2022 LiveLaw
(AP) 72
M/s. Indian Minerals and Granite Company v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022
LiveLaw (AP) 73
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant v. The Union of India ,
and connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 74
Chennuboina Raj Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 75
Yelamanchili Satya Krishna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP)
76
NMS Goud v. Punam Malakondaiah & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 77
M. Shyama Sundar Naidu, Chittoor DT and Ors. v. State of AP 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 78
VR Commodities Private Limited versus Norvic Shipping Asia Pte. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw
(AP) 79
Allaparthi Venkata ChalapathiRao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2022
LiveLaw (AP) 80
M/s Divine Chemtee Ltd and Anr.versus Principal Commissioner of Customs and Ors.
2022 LiveLaw (AP) 81
Chunduru Karthik Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 82
S.P.Y. Agro IndustriesLimited Vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 83
Syed Bilal & Ors. v. Stateof Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 84
Sri.Chintakayala Ayyannapatrudu vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 85
Desamsetti Siva Madhu Kalyan vs The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 86
SHAIK ABDUL GANI MIAH, KURNOOL DIST & ANO vs SECY, HOME DEPT,
HYD & 4 OT 2022LiveLaw (AP) 87
Kuchibhotla Srivatsa Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 88
The Divisional Manager,M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Harijana P.

Israil & P. Mabu 2022LiveLaw (AP) 89
TBS India Telematic andBiomedical Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Health and
Family Welfare,Arbitration Application No. 26 of 2020 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 90
ILLURI ESWARAIH vs T V JAGGI REDDY 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 91
Udathu Suresh vs State ofAndhra Pradesh and others 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 92
K. SRIHARI KUMAR, ANANTAPUR DIST vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

ANANTAPUR DIST & 2 OT 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 93
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v.SAMBIREDDY VENKATARAMANA 5 ORS

Vasavi Wedding And Event Planners Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw(AP)
95
GURRALA MAHAESH Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2022LiveLaw

(AP) 96
J KRISHNA KISHORE Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 97
M/s.VASAVI WEDDING and EVENTPLANNERS Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2022
LiveLaw (AP) 99
M/s. Siva ShankarMinerals Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2022
LiveLaw (AP)100
Katepogu Danamaiah v. TheChairman, Legal Service Authority 2022 LiveLaw (AP)

101
B.SRIDEVI Versus THE STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 102
S SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDUVersus V.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU 2022 LiveLaw (AP)

103
AP GENCO,RTPP,CUDDAPAH vs Y.DEVANANDAM & 4 OTHERS 2022

LiveLaw(AP) 104
Attuluru Ramamoorthy vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw(AP)

105
PADALA DHARMARAJU vs THE SATE OF AP 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 106
Pasagadula Sai Kiran v. The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 107
GALIVEETI SIVA RAMI REDDY Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA

PRADESH 2022LiveLaw (AP) 108
M/s. Dalapathi Constructionsversus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2022
LiveLaw (AP) 109
Vallepu Naga Raju Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 110
JATOTH ADITYA RATHOD Versus State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 111
Korada Subrahmanyam versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 112
Seva Swarna Kumari @ Kumarammaand others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh 2022
LiveLaw (AP) 113
YARRA SRINU Versus THESTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw (AP)

114
JATOTH ADITYA RATHOD VersusState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 115
M/s. Design Tech SystemsPvt.Ltd., Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

E.V. Rama Rao v. The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Revenue 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 117
M/s. Mangalore Minerals Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw
(AP) 118
Guduru Sekhar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 119
Ram Chandra Reddy v. IndustrialTribunal-cum-Labour Court Ananthapur & Anr.

Subba Rao v. Enquiry Officer,Cotton Corporation of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AP)
121
The New India Assurance CompanyLtd. v. Smt. M. Lakshmi Ramateertham 2022

LiveLaw (AP) 122
Ch. S. Rajeswara Rao v. Govt.of AP, Transport Department 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 123
The District CooperativeCentral Bank Ltd. v. The Controlling Authority under

Payment of Gratuity Act1972 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 124
Harinarayan Seet versus AndhraBank 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 125
M/S. Gandhar oil refinery(India) Limited v. Assistant commissioner of sales tax 2022
LiveLaw (AP) 126
Axis Bank Ltd. Versus The UnionOf India 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 127
Nagireddy Srinivasa Rao versusChinnari Suryanarayana 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 128
Dr. P. Pranjali v. Stateof Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 129

K.B. SETHURAMAN versus STATE OFA.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 130
P. Ranga Rao v. State ofAndhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 131
Amaravati Parirakshana Samitiv. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 132
C. Vasudeva Rao v. State ofAndhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 133
SAMPATHRAO SUDHAKAR v. EMIRATESINTERNATIONAL AIRLINES,

ICOMAOA No. 1&2 of 2019 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 134
Dalapathi Constructionsv. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. W.P. NO. 4652 of 2022
2022 LiveLaw(AP) 135
Amaravati Parirakshana Samitiversus State of A.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 136
M/s.Esveeaar DistilleriesPrivate Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Judgements/Orders This Year
Person In Possession & Enjoyment Of Property Can't Be Dispossessed By State

Authority Except By Due Process Of Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Shaik Gouse Peer v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 1
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that when a person is in settled possession
and enjoyment of a property, he cannot be dispossessed, except by following due process
of law.
Justice M. Satya Narayana Murthy said that"when the petitioner is in settled possession
and enjoyment of property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of
law...Therefore, the respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioner from the
property, except by due process of law."
Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Will Be Allowed Only If Any Of The
Clauses Are Strictly Applicable To The Pleadings In Plaint: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: T. Mahaboob Basha Versus Dowlath Bee

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday stated that the plaint cannot be rejected
under an application filed by defendant in Order VII Rule 11, CPC if none of the clauses
set out under Order VII Rule 11 are applicable to the pleadings strictly mentioned in the
plaint.
Continuation Of Rowdy Sheet Without Any Pending Criminal Case Is Illegal,

Unconstitutional: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Marri Gopi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday ruled that the action of the police in
continuing the rowdy sheet when the petitioner is acquitted in sole crime registered
against him is unconstitutional.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy relied on his recent order in Tadiboyina Peraiah v.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P. No. 24672 of 2020 wherein the Court held that:
"when in a sole crime that was registered against the petitioner, he was acquitted and no
other crime was registered against him and when there is no material on record placed
by the police to show that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the interest of
the public and that no person is coming forward to complain against him, that the
continuation of rowdy sheet in the said facts and circumstances of the case, is not
sustainable under law."
Married Daughter Also Entitled To Compassionate Appointment On Death Due To

COVID: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Smt. Peddisetti Anitha Sree @ Yenepalli Anitha Sree v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh
Recently, Justice Ninala Jayasurya of Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a married
daughter is also entitled to compassionate appointment. Her marital status will not be a
bar to claim the welfare scheme based on the facts and circumstances.
This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings in rejecting
the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, to
quash the same and for consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the
petitioner, in any suitable post, on compassionate grounds.
Under Section 482 CrPC Jurisdiction, Court Can't Examine If Subsequent Statement Was
Improvement Of Sec 161 Statement: AP High Court
Case Title: Thammisetti Narasimha Rao Versus The State of AP
The Andhra Pradesh Court recently ruled that in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
the Court cannot appreciate the evidence on record in exercise of its inherent powers.
The Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 was filed seeking to quash
the charge sheet. The petitioner who was one of the accused was undergoing prosecution
for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Justice Chekati Manavendranath Roy ruled that the ground raised by the petitioner is not
a valid legal ground for quash of charge sheet under Section 482. The bench stated as
below:
"Whether the subsequent statement given by her in her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement is
an improvement made subsequently or not and whether the said evidence is true or not is
the matter relating to appreciation of evidence by the trial Court in the final adjudication
of the case. This Court in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot appreciate the
evidence on record in exercise of its inherent powers."
Commercial Courts Have The Power To Permit New Timeline For Submission Of
Written Statement In Transferred Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Amoda Iron Steel Limited v. Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the Commercial Courts dealing with
transferred cases from civil courts have the power to prescribe a new timeline for
submission of written statement. The petition was filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Special Judge for Trial and
Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam for not extending the period of 120
days for filing the written statement.
Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari ruled as follows:
"1) where the suit or application has been transferred to the Commercial Court under
Section 15 (2) of the Act, 2015 from the civil court and the procedure for filing written
statement had not been completed at the time of transfer, the commercial court shall have
the power and jurisdiction to prescribe a new time period for filing written statement,
irrespective of the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons on the
concerned defendant.
2) In a suit or application transferred to the commercial court under Section 15(2) of the
Act, 2015, the written statement shall be filed within the new time period prescribed by
the Commercial Court in exercise of power under Section 15(4) of the Act, 2015, failing
which, on expiry of new time line so prescribed, the defendant shall forfeit his right to file
written statement and the court shall neither take the written statement on record nor
shall extend the new prescribed time period as mandated by Order VIII rules 1 and 10
CPC."
Section 52 Transfer Of Property Act Does Not Bar Temporary Injunction Against
Alienation Of Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: K Ravi Prasad Reddy v. G Giridhar
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that Section 52 of Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 does not operate as a bar to grant of temporary injunction under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2, of Civil Procedure Code.
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice C. Praveen Kumar in common judgment observed
that:
"Section 52 of T.P. Act although provides protection to the parties from transfers pendent
lite, in as much as it makes such transfers subservient to the decree that may be passed in
the suit, but it does not come in the way of passing an order of temporary injunction
restraining alienation of the suit property during the pendency of the suit on the applicant
satisfying all the three ingredients of prima facie, balance of convenience and causing
irreparable loss or injury in his favour."
Judicial Intervention Must Be Exercised Cautiously In Contractual Sphere, Specifically

In Govt Contracts: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case title: Attal Plastics v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
In the Contractual sphere, (like that of a tender), judicial scrutiny must be cautiously
exercised because the author of the contract is the best judge of its requirements and
eligibility conditions and courts should only interfere in case that eligibility criteria or
conditions are arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable or malafide, Andhra Pradesh High Court
has held.
Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao while dismissing a petition seeking to declare a tender
notification illegal citing arbitrary and unreasonable eligibility conditions, observed that
judicial intervention in state instrumentalities must be limited, arising only when there are
doubts about the procedure being arbitrary and against public interest.
Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Exercised If Order Of Quasi Judicial Authority Is Not

Reasoned/ Non-Speaking: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Chalasani Padma Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that quasi judicial authorities are not exempted
from giving cogent reasons for orders given by them and the Constitutional Court in the
exercise of writ jurisidiction can interfere with the final orders if they suffers from
manifest error.
Placing Hand On Woman's Body While She Is Sleeping Prima Facie An Offence U/S
354A IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Guduridheeraj Kumar Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a man placing hand on woman's body
while she is sleeping prima facie constitutes an offence under Section 354A which
prescribes punishment for sexual harassment. The acts punishable under Section 354 A
are:
 physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures;
or
 a demand or request for sexual favours; or
 showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
 making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual
harassment
Where An Allegation Of Fraud Is Made, The Said Allegation Would Have To Be Proved
Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Balina Srimannarayana Versus S.R.R.Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd.
The Andhra Pradesh Court vide order by Justice R. Raghunandan Rao recently ruled that
where an allegation of fraud is made, the said allegation would have to be proved beyond
any reasonable doubt.
The Petitioner had constructed a multi storied commercial complex in the suit schedule
property under a development agreement with APSRTC. The petitioner provided a part
of the complex for 10 years on sub-license to the respondent for hotel and hospitality
services. The Respondent defaulted in payment of license fee. As a consequence, the
Petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 2,05,11,560/- and for a
direction to respondent to vacate the plaint schedule property.
Advocate Commissioner Cannot Be Appointed During Execution Proceedings To

Reverse Finding Of Trial Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M Rama Chandraiah Versus Valleupu China Ankaiah
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the Executing Court cannot appoint
Advocate Commissioner in execution proceedings after the trial court has already
decided the question of possession of property.
Justice R. Raghunandan Rao observed,
"In the present case, the trial Court of competent jurisdiction has already decided the
question of possession of the property in favour of the petitioner herein. This finding
cannot be over turned by the Executing Court while passing orders in an Execution
Petition. The Executing Court ought not to have directed the appointment of an advocate
commissioner in such a circumstance."
Petitioner Was Ineligible To Write Entrance Test, Can't Take Advantage Of University's
Improper Verification For Admission: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Devu Poojitha Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent writ petition observed that a candidate who is
ineligible to appear in an entrance exam on the date of application, cannot take advantage
of the University's improper verification of eligibility criteria and claim right to appear in
the counselling round.
Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao observed,
"the petitioner cannot claim any legitimate right for grant of a seat for the main reason
that the petitioner having full knowledge about the eligibility criteria fixed in the
entrance test notification and also knowing that she was over aged by 31.12.2021, still
applied for entrance test. It is not a case of her acquiring disability on a subsequent turn
of events."
Grievance About Fixation Of Stamp Duty Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of Trial Court: Andhra
Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Murarisetty Sai Baba Versus Ommina China Eswaraiah
The Andhra Pradesh Court recently ruled that the any grievance relating to fixation of
stamp duty and penalty would only be a revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the trial court would have no role in the
fixation of the stamp duty or penalty.
The respondent had filed suit against the petitioner for eviction and recovery of damages
for use of the suit schedule property. The Petitioner had sought to mark an agreement of
sale as part of his defence.
Person Can't Be Prosecuted For Abetment Of Suicide Merely Because Complainant Was
Embarrassed About Being Beaten Up Publicly: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Vegulla Leela Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
In a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR with respect to offences punishable
under Sections 306 read with 116 of the Indian Penal Code by holding that merely
because the victim felt embarrassed on being beaten in public and took a hasty decision
to commit suicide, the Petitioner cannot be found fault with under Section 306 of IPC.
"As can be seen from the facts of the case, prima facie there is absolutely no allegation
that the petitioner has abetted the de facto complainant to commit suicide. It is well
settled law that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the
necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 107 IPC regarding intentional
instigation said to have been given by the petitioner to the de facto complainant to
commit suicide or intentional aid said to have been given by the petitioner to him to
commit suicide shall be established," the Court observed.
Writ Petition Maintainable Even If There Is Alternate Remedy, Where Principles Of

Natural Justice Are Not Followed: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Polu Venkata Lakshmamma & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated the established principle that even if there
is an alternative remedy available, in case the rules of natural justice have not been
followed, the aggrieved may approach the High Court by way of a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
Mere Fact That FIR Was Lodged As A Counterblast Not Ground To Quash It U/S 482
CrPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Smt. H. Malleswaramma Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the mere fact that FIR was lodged
against the accused as a counter blast by itself cannot be a ground to quash the FIR under
Section 482 of CrPC. It is a matter to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer during
the course of investigation, it held.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed,
"that the present report was lodged against them as a counter blast by itself cannot be a
ground to quash the F.I.R. Whether the allegations are false or not and whether the
report was lodged as a counter blast to the report lodged by the de facto complainant or
not is the matter to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation. Therefore, there are no valid legal grounds emanating from the record
warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the F.I.R at this
stage."
S. 37 NDPS Act | Regular Bail For Possession Of 'Ganja' Can Be Granted If It Is Not Of
Commercial Quantity: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: BIKKA PARVATHI Versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted regular bail to an accused under
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, noting that the rigours of bail
stipulated under Section 37 thereof do not apply in case the recovery is not of commercial
quantity contraband.
Commercial Court Has Jurisdiction Over Suit Property Used For Trade/ Commerce:
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Cause Title: GANGISETTY ANURADHA v. BIJALA SUBRAMANYAM
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently transferred a suit from a Civil Court to the
Commercial Court as the subject property in the suit was exclusively used for trade or
commerce by a partnership firm, before its dissolution.
The court observed that the dispute is a commercial dispute for specified value defined
under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) [agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively
in trade or commerce] and 2(1)(c)(xv) [partnership agreements] of the Commercial
Courts Act as the value of the suit is more than Rs. 3 lakhs and the property was
exclusively used for trade and commerce in a partnership agreement.
Bail Cannot Be Cancelled On The Basis Of Vague Allegation Against The Accused:
Case Title: Vaddu Lakshmidevamma @ Lakshmi Devi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the bail granted cannot be cancelled
under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure if there are vague allegations against
the accused without any substantive proof.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy relied on Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, 1986
where the illustrative instances of when bail can be cancelled were given:
(i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes
with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv)
threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth
investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to
make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating
agency and (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc....".
Right To Protest Not Lost Merely Because Same Issue Is Pending Before A
Constitutional Court : Andhra Pradesh HC
Cause Title: K V Krishnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed in a recent case that a petitioner will not be
deprived of the right to protest on an issue merely because he has approached a
constitutional court on the same subject matter.
In a recent writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice Ahsanuddin
Amanullah and B.S. Bhanumathi in obiter said:
"Approaching a constitutional court for redressal of grievances ipso facto would not
disentitle a citizen from protesting in relation to the same subject-matter. We say for the
reason that when the Court would be looking at the dispute, it would examine the matter
only from a legal lens, based upon settled parameters of adjudication; whereas, the
purpose of protest is to draw attention of the government to an issue."
Social Media Posts Against HC, SC Judges: AP High Court Grants Bail To 2 Advocates,
Denies Bail To A Software Engineer
Case title - Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi and 2 others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 22
The Andhra Pradesh High Court last week denied bail to a software engineer who has
been accused of making wild and reckless allegations against the High Court Judges of
the High Court and the Judges of the Supreme Court.
The Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, however, granted bail to two
advocates taking into account the fact that they tendered an apology that was already
accepted by the High Court.
Improvement In Charge Sheet Without Supporting Material Is Ground For Quashing

Proceedings U/S 482 CrPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: VINTI RAMAKRISHNA, W.G.DIST. & ORS v. P.P., HYD

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that statement added in charge sheet in the
absence of any such averment in the FIR or Section 161 CrPC statement is an abuse of
process of court and the proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC.
'Road Tax' Paid At Time Of Purchase Of Vehicle & 'Toll Tax' Paid On Highway Do Not
Amount To Double Taxation: Telangana High Court
Case Title: D. Vidya Sagar v. Union of India and 4 other
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that the road tax paid under the Motor Vehicles
Act while purchasing the cars, and collection of toll tax at National Highway Toll Booths
do not amount to double taxation.
The court observed that the Government of India took a policy decision by adding
Section 8A under the National Highways Act in order to provide road infrastructure
throughout the country by way of Public Private Partnership (PPP) in the matter of
construction, widening, upgradation and strengthening of roads. Even the Rules framed
under the National Highways Act provide for collection of Toll Tax such as the National
Highways (Collection of fees), The National Highways Fees (Determination of rates and
Collections) Rules, 2008. Certain dignitaries are also clearly exempted from payment of
fee as provided in Rules.
S.14 SARFAESI Act | Creditor Bound By Time-Limit Prescribed By Magistrate For

Taking Possession Of Secured Asset: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Mangalagiri Textile Mills v. State Bank of India
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that once the time specified in the warrant
issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate under Section 14 of
SARFAESI Act had elapsed, possession of the secured asset cannot be taken under the
same warrant unless the time granted is extended.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and B.S. Bhanumathi said:
The main objective of the Act is to enable secured borrowers to take physical possession
of the assets of the defaulting borrowers in an expeditious manner; if no time limit is
fixed it would be self-defeating inasmuch as though the statute indicates a time frame for
the CMM/District Magistrate to pass an order, if the person/authority who is required to
carry out the order does not do so within the time fixed, it would lead to an anomalous
position in law as there is no remedy prescribed under the statute.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs State Govt To Complete Construction Of Amaravati-
Capital Region In 6 Months
Case title - Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 26
In a significant development, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State
government to construct and develop Amaravati capital city and capital region within six
months as agreed in the terms and conditions under the provisions of APCRDA Act of
2014 [brought by the previous Telugu Desam Party's regime] and Land Pooling Rules,
2015.
A Full Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy
and Justice D. V. S. S. Somayajulu has issued this direction in a clutch of writ petitions
filed before it challenging the A. P. Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All
Regions Act 2020 and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development (Repeal) Act 2020.
It is important to note that during the course of the hearing of these pleas, the Andhra
Pradesh Government had withdrawn these acts, also called the three capital laws, as they
sought to establish three capitals instead of one capital.
"Record Satisfaction Before Authorizing Detention In Exercise Of Powers U/S 167

CrPC": AP High Court Directs Judicial Magistrates
Case title - Blineni Rajagopal Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 27
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State Judicial Magistrates to record their
satisfaction before authorizing the detention, in the exercise of powers under Section 167
Cr.P.C., and that they must apply their mind objectively in the obtaining facts of the case
and pass a reasoned order.
The Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice A. V. Sesha Sai also
clarified categorically that any negligence in this regard shall be viewed seriously and the
Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the High Court.
Suit For Declaration Must Be Filed Where Property Title Is In Dispute, Not Suit For
Perpetual Injunction : Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Karukola Vasudevarao v. Karri Suseelamma & ors.

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where the title of a
property is in dispute, the parties concerned must file a suit for declaration and not a suit
for perpetual injunction simplicitor.
"Though question of title would be incidentally go into in a suit filed for injunction, when
the adversary parties are claiming the schedule property under registered documents the
plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for declaration. Complicated question of title will not be
determined in a suit for perpetual injunction. Court would only concerned possession of
the plaintiffs on the date of filing of the suit," Justice Subba Reddy Satti held.
Interference In Intra-Court Appeal Under Clause 15 Of The Letters Patent Appeal Is

Limited Unless The Findings Of Single Judge Are Arbitrary: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Chaitanya Godavri Grameena Bank, Guntur v. K. Ravi Kumari
The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that there is no
requirement to interfere in order of the learned Single Judge in an intra-Court appeal
under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal when there is no perverse or illegal finding.
The court relied on Seshaiah v. South Central Railway, (2019) in which it was held that
in an intra-Court appeal interference in the order of the learned Single Judge is not a
matter of course except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised
arbitrarily.
A Charge Over Property Cannot Be Created In Lieu Of Maintenance If Neglect Of

Husband Is Not Proved And Is A Self-Acquired Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: V.Manjula Versus V.Jagadish
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently denied the claim of wife for a charge over
husband's property in lieu of maintenance as it was a self-acquired property and no
material evidence was given to prove that the husband neglected to maintain the wife and
children.
The court held that since the wife failed to prove the act of negligence on the part of her
husband and as the properties were not purchased from joint family funds, she was
neither entitled to claim maintenance nor charge over the schedule properties. The court
dismissed the appeal as there were no merits.
The Supply Of Essential Commodities To Fair Price Shop Cannot Be Stopped During
Enquiry Unless The Authorization Is Cancelled: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Kommineni Venkateswara Rao, Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
In a recent case, a writ petition was filed questioning the action of respondents in not
allotting the essential commodities to the petitioners who runs a Fair Price Shop for
distribution to the cardholders during subsistence of authorization pertaining to the shop
as illegal and arbitrary.
The court directed the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner's
fair price shop as long as the authorization was subsisting. But the court also noted that
this order would not preclude the respondents from conducting enquiry against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
No Default Bail If Statutory Period To Complete Investigation Extended U/S 36A(4)

NDPS Act Before Expiry Of 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : M. Mohanraj Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently laid down that if investigation in illegal
possession of commercial quantity of ganja is pending beyond the statutory limit of 180
days by virtue of extension granted under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) well in advance, then default bail under
Section 167(2) CrPC cannot be granted.
"As per the provisions of the NDPS Act, the investigation has to be completed within 180
days from the date of arrest of the accused. The said period would expire by 11.12.2021.
However, the record reveals that the prosecution has filed an application for extension of
period for completion of investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act well in
advance before expiry of 180 days i.e. on 22.11.2021. The said petition was allowed by
the Court and the period of time for completion of investigation was extended by another
180 days. Therefore, considering the fact that the time for completion of investigation
was extended under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, the lower Court has rightly
dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of default bail under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C.," the Court observed in the present case.
Writ Petition In Contractual Matters Maintainable If Work Payment Arbitrarily Withheld

By State Or Its Instrumentality: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Kathupalli Venkata Sowmya Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently reiterated that a writ petition in contractual
matters is maintainable if State or any instrumentality of the State acts arbitrarily by
withholding the amount legitimately payable to the contracting party.
In the instant case, Justice Battu Devanand held that the petitioner is entitled to the
principal amount along with interest for the loss caused due to "illegal deprivation of
right".
"When the State or its instrumentalities failed to act legally within reasonable period to
make payment to the petitioner for the works executed by her and infringed the
fundamental rights of the petitioner, we hold that the Writ Court is having jurisdiction to
entertain the claim of the petitioner."
Vague Allegations Regarding Harassment Prima Facie Do Not Constitute Offence U/S
498A IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Gudimetla Srinivasulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that when there are no specific allegations
made against the relatives of husband in a dowry harassment case, then it prima facie
does not constitute an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
GST Appeal Filed Physically On Failure Of Digital Filing - Department Wrongly

Rejected Appeal: Andhra High Court
Case Title: Ali Cotton Mill v. Appellate Joint Commissioner
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Justice J.
Uma Devi has quashed the order rejecting the GST appeal which was not filed
electronically.
The petitioner/assessee preferred a statutory appeal against the assessment orders passed
by the department. As Rule 108 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules
(APGST Rules) permits filing of an appeal electronically, the petitioner had attempted to
file the appeal electronically, but it was not received by the Department Website due to
some glitches. Therefore, the petitioner filed the same manually with the department and
obtained an acknowledgement.
The court rejected the argument of the department's counsel and noted that all the check
memos were issued only after manually filing the appeal. The appellate authority has
rejected the appeal not on the merits but on the sole ground that it was not filed by the
assessee electronically.
Writ Petition Is Not A Proper Remedy If There Are Seriously Disputed Questions Of
Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust Versus The State
of Andhra Pradesh
In a recent case, a writ petition was dismissed as in the facts of the case there were
seriously disputed questions for which evidence was required.
The writ petition was filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in not paying the
compensation for the acquisition of land.
The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was a private trust running a
Dharmasatram. It was the owner of the subject land which was taken over by the
Respondent Corporation and a bus station was established but no compensation was paid
whatsoever.
High Court Has 'Inherent Power' To Allow Compromise For Non-Compoundable

Offences For Disputes Private In Nature: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: CHEPALA APPALA RAJU Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the compromise entered into by
the parties and quashed the criminal proceedings against the offender even though the
offence was non-compoundable under Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The offence alleged was under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code that deals with Dowry
Death. The applications were filed requesting the Court to permit the defacto complainant
to compound the offences and record the compromise.
Labour Court Amenable To High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227,
Not Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s. Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd. Versus Dhiren Kumar

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently observed that High Court cannot issue writs
under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the Labour Court as it is a
Civil Court and only supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised.
"While challenging an award under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court
exercises powers and jurisdiction of a Civil Court and that orders passed by a Civil
Court can only be challenged before the High Court by way of a Writ Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India," it held.
Courts Do Not Have The Power To Seize The Passport Under Section 104 CrPC Even
When A Criminal Case Is Pending: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Ravi Ramesh Babu Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 39
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that impounding of a passport
cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 CrPC even when a criminal case is
pending.
The criminal petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure
seeking to quash the order of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge and to return the
passport of the petitioner to allow him to travel to USA after its renewal.
Accused Can't Take Advantage Of Their Own Dilatory Tactics & Seek Bail If There Is
Delay In Completing Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: S Muragan @ Muruga Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent case observed that the accused had created
hurdles from time to time so that the trial could not be completed. As a consequence, the
accused/petitioner is not entitled to bail as it cannot take advantage of their own dilatory
tactics.
The court held that when the accused are responsible for delay in completing the trial of
the case, they cannot take advantage of their own dilatory tactics and seek bail on that
ground. Furthermore, from the facts, the petitioner was the main person behind the
conspiracy and commission of murder of the Mayor. Therefore, the Court was of the
considered view that the petitioner was not entitled to bail.
Rate Of Interest In A Contract May Be Modified By The Court On Equitable Grounds:

Case Title : A. Satyanarayana, Versus M. Panduranga Rao
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that where the rate of interest is fixed in
the contract, it would be open to the Court to vary the rate of interest from the date of the
suit till the date of recovery of the amount on equitable grounds, if the amount of interest
is exorbitant.
The court observed that the rate of 30% p.a. was not being charged at a simple interest
but was being compounded on an annual basis. Since the suit was filed in 1997, it would
be appropriate to reduce the interest rate substantially.
Cross-Examination Is Rule Of Essential Justice, Non-Cross-Examination Implies

Statement Of Witness Has Not Been Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently reiterated the principles with regard to cross-
examination as not merely being a technical rule of evidence but a rule of essential justice.
Case Title : K Prabhakar Reddy Versus Lakkaraja Munirathnam
The Court also noted the Supreme Court judgment in Muddasani Venkata Narasaiah v.
Muddasani Sarojana that encapsulates the basic principles which need to be followed
while cross-examining a witness.
"The cross-examination is a matter of substance not of procedure one is required to put

one's own version in cross-examination of opponent. The effect of non-cross- examination
is that the statement of witness has not been disputed… The High Court of Calcutta in
A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian [A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian, 1960 SCC
OnLine Cal 44 : AIR 1961 Cal 359] has laid down that the party is obliged to put his
case in cross-examination of witnesses of opposite party. The rule of putting one's version
in cross- examination is one of essential justice and not merely technical one."The Court
was in full agreement with the said principles.
Accused Can Be Granted Bail After Issuance Of Non-Bailable Warrant If His Absence
During Summons Was Not Willful: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Dommeti Chakradhar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted bail to an accused on whom the non-
bailable warrant was issued due to his absence during issue of summons. The court
observed that the accused had no knowledge of the summons as he had changed his
residence and therefore could not appear on the dates before the trial Court.
The court observed that it was not in dispute that summons was not served on petitioner
as he had shifted his residence. On this account, the petitioner could not appear before the
Court and his absence was not deliberate or willful. The petitioner also gave the
undertaking that he would appear before the trial Court as and when directed.
Ultimate Aim Of Courts Is To Find The "Truth": Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders
Exhumation Of Body For Fresh Postmortem
Case Title : Geddam Bullayya Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
In a recent writ petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the deceased's body to
be exhumed and a fresh postmortem to be conducted as the medical evidence did not
seem conclusive from the Police Case Diary.
The Writ Petition was filed for Mandamus against respondents who were police officers
for not conducting a free and fair investigation into Crime and to handover the case to an
independent agency i.e. CBCID for investigation into the matter.
the Court opined that there was a need to exhume the body to conduct a de novo
postmortem by a fresh team of qualified doctors.
"In this Court's opinion Medical evidence may help the police in coming to a firm
conclusion. The ultimate aim of the Courts; the police, the prosecutors etc., is to find the
"truth". No stone should be left unturned in this quest for truth."
Absence Of Reasons In Order Imposing Penalty Violates Principles Of Natural Justice:

Case Title: N. Srinath Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh
In a recent case, Justice R. Raghunandan Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has
reiterated the principle that absence of reasons in an order as to why conditions and
penalty are imposed is a violation of natural justice principle.
The petitioner had been granted a quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of land
for a period of 20 years. The said lease had been determined by an order of Director,
Mines and Geology. Aggrieved by the Order, a Revision was filed under the A.P. Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1996. The revision was allowed but a condition was imposed
towards penalty.
The court observed that no reasons were given as to why such conditions were imposed
on the petitioner.
"The absence of reasons is a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice in as

much as neither the petitioner nor the Higher Authority would have any idea as to what
went on in the mind of the authority while passing such an order."
Section 420IPC- Complaint Can Be Quashed If Company Is Not Made A Co-Accused In

A Crime: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: N. Gopinath Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC
to quash a FIR which had not made a company as co-accused even though the transaction
was made with the company. Justice D. Ramesh held that since the company was not
made the co-accused, on this ground alone, the complaint is required to be quashed.
Show-Cause Notice And The Final Order By Public Authority Having Different Reasons
Is Grave Illegality: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Justice Satyanarayana Murthy of Andhra Pradesh High Court, passed a detailed order
stating that show-cause notice and the final order cannot have different reasons or
grounds as it denies the noticee the opportunity to rebut the allegations.
In UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India (2021), the Apex
Court held that the show cause notice must spell out clearly or its contents be such that it
can be clearly inferred therefrom.
Writ Is Not A Proper Remedy For Seriously Disputed Question Of Facts That Are
Matters Of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust Versus The State
of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition which brought up for
consideration seriously disputed questions of facts that are matters of evidence, and held
that the same falls outside the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu observed that the case had fundamental question to be
decided about the land i.e. whether the land was donated or occupied. Was the land
"forcibly taken over" was another issue. The petitioner's inaction for years was also
clearly visible. There was no "gift deed' but per se some contemporaneous evidence was
produced. Hence, there were seriously disputed questions of facts.
Issue Of Notice Of Hearing Is A Statutory Requirement Under Section 75(4) Of CGST

Act Before Imposition Of Tax Or Penalty: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case title: M/s. Sree Constructions, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition by an assesse as there was no
notice given to him before contemplating to pass an adverse Tax Assessment Order
which is violative of Section 75(4) of CGST Act, 2017.
The provision Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, reads as under:
"An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from
the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated
against such person."
Essential Commodities Cannot Be Confiscated Without Giving A Notice And

Opportunity Of Hearing Under Section 6B Of EC Act: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: Dommaraju Vinay Versus The State of A.P.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed writ petition holding that statutory notice before
confiscation of essential commodity is mandatory under Section 6B of the Essential
Commodities Act.
Section 6B provides that no order confiscating any essential commodity package shall be
made unless such person from whom it is seized is given a notice informing him of the
grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate and is given an opportunity of making a
representation against the ground of confiscation.
Power Of Attorney Executed Outside India If Not Duly Stamped Within 3 Months Of
Receipt In India Will Be Impounded & Charged Penalty: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: Pedapudi Alfred Johnson Jeyakaran Jesudasan Versus The State of Andhra
Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered the impounding of Power of Attorney (GPA)
which was executed outside India. The GPA was not stamped within three months after it
had been first received in India as per Section 18 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao observed "Though the instrument was executed outside
India and it was not duly stamped and presented before 3rd respondent within the period
of three months, the said authority can impound the same and collect the required stamp
duty and penalty and validate the document."
License Is Treated As Contract And Extension Of License Is Purely A Matter Of

Discretion And The Courts Cannot Intervene: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Gadda Ramesh Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
In this case, Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that the courts cannot intervene in matters
of extension of license as license is treated as a contract. The license has to be treated as
contract and the mater of extension is purely a matter of discretion of the contracting
parties.
Handwriting On A Disputed Document Cannot Be Compared With Signatures On

Vakalat & Written Statement: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Byalla Devadas Versus Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in this case ruled that no time limit is fixed under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending disputed writings to the handwriting
expert and it can be done at any stage of trial. Furthermore, the handwriting on a disputed
document cannot be compared with the signatures on Vakalat and Written Statement as
these are not assured standard documents.
Justice Ninala Jayasurya relied on P. Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao, 2016, in which

it was held as:
"In the well-considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and
the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured
standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the
defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on
the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the
plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat
and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie."
NDPS Act | Commercial Quantity Of Contraband Seized, Mere Non-Mentioning Of

Exact Weight In FIR Not Fatal To Prosecution Case: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: Raju Jat Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that mere non-mentioning of exact quantity of
ganja in FIR will not render prosecution's case meritless, if the amount obtained from the
accused is a commercial quantity.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy held that:
"In the said facts and circumstances of the case, mere non-mentioning of exact quantity
of ganja in F.I.R by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As the quantity of
ganja that was seized from the possession of the petitioners is a commercial quantity, the
bar and rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the present facts of the
case."
Right To Speedy Trial Does Not Protect An Accused From All Prejudicial Effects
Caused By Delay: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates
Case Title: CY. Pratap Reddy Versus State
The Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that the matter can be remanded back to trial
Court for trial of the case even if there is delay and the accused cannot be protected from
all prejudicial effects under the right to speedy trial unless actual prejudice has been
proved.
"Its core concern is impairment of liberty. Possibility of prejudice is not enough. Actual
prejudice has to be proved."
Public Servant Can't Be Prosecuted Under SC/ ST Act In Absence Of Averments In FIR
Showing 'Willful Negligence' Of Duties: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: N. Appa Rao Versus The State Of AP
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently discontinued an investigation in a crime in

which the First Information Report did not indicate any willful negligence of duties by
public servant which were required to be performed under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice C. Praveen Kumar observed that the petitioners were undoubtedly public servants.
But the averments in the First Information Report did not indicate any willful negligence
of duties which were required to be performed under the POA Act.
The criminal petition was allowed as it was very clear from the allegations in the report
that no offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
6 Kgs Ganja Not Commercial Quantity, Rigours Of Bail U/S 37 NDPS Act Not
Applicable: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Dinesh @ Dinesh Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a man accused of possessing 6 Kgs of
Ganja, observing that the same is not a "commercial quantity" and thus the case for grant
of bail will not be governed under Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Commercial Quantity in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is defined

under Section 2(viia) of the Act. It means any quantity greater than the quantity specified
by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Presently, commercial
quantity of Ganja is 20 Kgs or more.
Covid-19 No Longer A Valid Ground To Deny Permission For Taking Out Padyatra:
Case Title: Karampudi Vijay Pal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the State to consider the petitioner's request to
conduct padyatra to the office of the Chief Minister.
Justice D. V. S. S. Somyajulu observed that Covid-19 is no longer a valid condition to

stop him from the padyatra.
"Considering the submissions made, this Court has to agree the reason No.1 (COVID-19)
is no longer a valid ground for rejecting the permission. The petitioner also agrees to
furnish a route map and also the clear and categorical details of the participant along
with Aadhar card and other documents of the identity of the people, who are going to
accompany the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also that all the people,
who are accompanying the petitioner, are law abiding citizens."
Possession Of 16 Kg Ganja Does Not Attract The Bar Under Section 37 Of NDPS:
Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Accused
Case Title: Nandurkar Satish Dowlathrao V. State Rep By The Public Prosecutor
The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a person accused of illegal possession of
16 kgs of Ganja.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed:
"The contraband involved in this case is 16 kgs of Ganja which is not a commercial
quantity. Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the Act is not applicable to the present
facts of the case."
The petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 16 kgs of Ganja that he was
apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from his possession.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused Of Illegally Transporting 55
Kgs Ganja
Case Title: Arun Kumar Mahipal Singh V. State
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted bail to a person accused of illegally
transporting 55 KGs of Ganja in his car.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed that he has been languishing in jail for
the last more than 240 days' period of time. Since the entire investigation in this case is
completed and charge sheet was also filed. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances
of the case, his further incarceration is not warranted.
16. Hindu Rule Of Damdupat Does Not Apply To The State Of Andhra Pradesh For Any
Money Transactions: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Edhellacheruvu Balarami Reddy Versus Edhellacheruvu Munaswamy Reddy
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the Hindu Rule of Damdupat which
specifies that the interest amount charged cannot exceed the principal amount, does not
apply to money transactions in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Court, with regard to applicability of Rule of Damdupat, relied on Suryapaga

Ravikumar v. Pakkela Ramarao & Ors., 2009 in which the composite court of Andhra
Pradesh High Court observed that Rule of Damdupat had no application whatsoever to
the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of any transactions.
Relief Of Specific Performance In An Agreement Of Sale Will Not Be Granted If Vendor

Has No Absolute Title Over Suit Schedule Property: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Gampala Naga Raju Versus Shaik Nazeerunnisa
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an agreement of Sale cannot be decreed to be
performed if the seller did not have absolute right and title over the suit schedule property
in view of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The provision states that contract
to sell or let property by one who has no title is not specifically enforceable.
"Heinous": Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Warden Of Blind School
Accused Of Raping Visually Challenged Girl
Case Title: Sunkara Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court denied bail to a warden of blind school, accused of
raping a visually challenged girl.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed that the offense is of serious nature.
Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.
"….Therefore, having regard to the heinous nature of the offence and the grave nature of
the offence in which the petitioner is involved, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Man Arrested For Carrying "Toy Gun" To
Movie Theatre
Case Title: MAROJU VAIKUNTA BALABJI @ BALAJI Versus THE STATE OF

ANDHRA PRADESH
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted bail to a man arrested under Sections
290 (Punishment for public nuisance), 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) r/w 34
(Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) IPC and under
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 for carrying a toy gun to a cinema theatre.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed that the offenses under section 290 and
506 IPC are bailable offenses and charges under section 25 of Arm act are prima facie not
made out because the gun used by the petitioner was a "toy gun".
S.482 CrPC | Criminal Proceedings Can't Be Quashed If Specific Accusations Made

Against Accused, Can't Conduct Roving Inquiry: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Uggina Nagamani Versus Kona Persisurani
The Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that when there are specific accusations in the
FIR, charge sheet and witness statement to police, the court does not have the jurisdiction
to embark upon appreciation of material in a petition under Section 482 of CrPC.
Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed:
"Prima facie when an accusation has been made, this Court would not embark upon
appreciation of the material in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
proceedings."
Registered Gift Deed Can't Be Unilaterally Cancelled By Donor Without Consent Of

Donee: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Chelluboyina. Nagaraju Versus Molleti Ramudu alias Vijayalakshmi

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed
by donor does not affect the rights of the donee as it is contrary to the law under
Registration Act.
"Cancellation of gift deed unilaterally by donor is contrary to the Rules under the
Registration Act. Thus, cancellation does not affect the right of the
respondents/plaintiffs," Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held.
It added that in such cases, the latin maxim nemo dat quad non habit applies squarely,
meaning No person can convey better title than what he has.
Mere Payment Of Advance At Time Of Entering Into Lease Would Not Inure To The
Benefit Of Tenant: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s. Mobile and Movie World, Versus Sri Ghulam Abbas Khurasani
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the tenant as it did
not find any need to interfere in the finding of the trial Court, passing the order of
eviction over non-payment of rent. The court ruled that mere payment of advance amount
at the time of entering into lease would not inure to the benefit of tenant. Tenant at the
most is entitled to recover the amount.
Correctness Of Judicial Order Said To Be Wilfully Disobeyed Can't Be Decided In

Contempt Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Parasaramka Versus Pradeep Kumar Rath
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction
cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any
direction.
Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy held "While dealing with an application for contempt
the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other
words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It
cannot traverse beyond the order...That would be exercising review jurisdiction while
dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be
impermissible and indefensible,"
The Bench ruled that utter disobedience of the order in the case caused serious damage to
the judicial institution itself. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be decided in
contempt proceedings. The authorities have to implement the order without giving any
interpretation to it.
Caste-Based Insult Over Telephone Conversation Not An Offence U/S 3 SC/ ST Act If
Not In "Public View": Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: G.P. HEMAKOTI REDDY, ANANTHAPUR DIST. Versus P.P., HYD
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that to constitute an offence under Section
3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (SC & ST Act), there has to be averments that the words have been uttered in view
of public with an intention to humiliate the complainant that he belonged to a particular
community.
Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed: "In the case on hand, it is not the case of 2nd
respondent-defacto complainant that when the telephonic conversation was taking place,
there were people present at that place. It is also not his case that the discussion that
went on between 2nd respondent-defacto complainant has been over-heard by the public
at large,"
Conditional Bail May Be Granted For Non-Bailable Offences U/S 439 CrPC If
Considerable Progress In Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Mara Manohar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in exercise of its special power under Section 439 of
CrPC granted conditional bail to the petitioner who was accused of a non-bailable
offence as there had been considerable progress in the investigation since the time of
arrest.
Plea Of Alibi By Accused Can't Be Taken Into Consideration At Pre-Trial Stage As It Is

A Disputed Question Of Fact: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a case dismissed the petition for discharge of accused
on his plea that he was not present at the scene of offence during the commission of the
offence. The court ruled that plea of alibi by accused cannot be taken into consideration
at the time of framing of charges, since it is a disputed question of fact.
Justice Cheekati Manavendranath confirmed the decision of the trial Court as a plea of
alibi is a matter relating to a question of fact
"When the accused has taken a plea of alibi, undoubtedly it is a matter relating to
question of fact as to whether the accused was present at the scene of offence at the time
of the offence or not. In a way, it amounts to taking a plea of alibi by the accused. It is
settled law that the burden of proving the said plea of alibi is on the accused. Therefore,
they are all disputed questions of fact which requires evidence and appreciation of the
same in the final adjudication of the case."
Simultaneous Initiation Of Criminal Case U/S 145 CrPC & Civil Proceedings Over Land
Dispute 'Abuse Of Process': Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : G.Ramesh Babu, Chittoor Dt., Versus The State Of Ap., Rep Pp And 3 Ors
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that multiplicity of litigation was not in the interest
of parties. If civil dispute over title of land is already instituted, then parallel criminal
proceedings under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure is meaningless.
Section 145 provides that the Executive Magistrate, if satisfied from a report from police
officer can pass an order, where dispute is concerned about land or water and is likely to
cause breach of peace.
Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed, "Simultaneously initiation of criminal proceedings

under Section 145 Cr.P.C. along with the civil proceedings is nothing but abuse of
process of the Court,"
Order Of Administrative Tribunal Not Amenable To Judicial Review U/Art 226 In

Absence Of Jurisdictional Error/ Patent Perversity: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: M/s. Indian Minerals and Granite Company Versus The State of Andhra
Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court did not issue Writ of Certiorari in a writ petition which
challenged the order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal as there was neither
jurisdiction error nor patent perversity.
"In the considered opinion of this Court, there is neither jurisdictional error nor there is
any patent perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal which warrant issuance of writ
in the nature of Writ of Certiorari. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to meddle with
the order passed by the Tribunal," Bench of Justice A.V.Sesha Sai and Justice Ravi
Cheemalapati observed.
Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act Is Not Applicable To Work
Contracts Even With Elements Of Supply In It: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL

PLANT v. THE UNION OF INDIA , and connected matters
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition to hold that the
Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'MSMED Act')
was not applicable to the contract because contracts were work contracts with an element
of supply and not mere supply and service contracts. Furthermore, it was held that
facilitation council under the Act did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as
memorandum was not filed before entering into the contract.
Customer Of Prostitution Is Not Liable For Prosecution: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Chennuboina Raj Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The allegation against the petitioner was that at the time when police raided the brothel
house, they found the petitioner there as customer who visited for prostitution in payment
of money to other accused.
In Sri Roopendra Singh v. State of Karnataka (2021), Z. Lourdiah Naidu v. State of A.P.
(2014), Goenka Sajan Kumar v. State of A.P (2014), it became a settled law that those
who visited the brothel house for prostitution as mere customers were not liable for
prosecution. The court for this reason allowed the Criminal Petition.
Can't Exercise Writ Jurisdiction To Interfere In Election Process Once It Has

Commenced: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Yelamanchili Satya Krishna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently did not intervene in the election process of a
Bank registered under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act,
1995. The Election was alleged to be irregular and contrary to law but the Court held that
it cannot stall the election process once it has commenced.
"Incumbent Upon Govt Servants To Promptly Comply With Judicial Orders": Andhra
Pradesh HC Sentences 3 IAS Officers To One Month Jail For Contempt
Case Title: NMS Goud v. Punam Malakondaiah & Ors.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently sentenced 3 IAS officers to one month jail for
contempt of court while observing that it is incumbent on Government servants to ensure
that the orders of this Court are complied with promptitude.
The observation came from Justice Battu Devanand:
"The contempt case is allowed and the contemnors are sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one (1) month each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees
two thousand only) each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one (1) week each. The contemnor Nos. 2 and 3, who are
present before this Court, requested the Court to suspend the sentence. Considering their
request, the sentence is suspended for a period of six (06) weeks. The 1st Contemnor is
directed to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on or before
13.05.2022."
Magistrate Has To Apply His Mind While Referring Matter To Police U/S 156(3) CrPC
If There Is Delay In Filing Of Complaint: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: M.SHYAMA SUNDAR NAIDU, CHITTOOR DT; 2 OTRS., Versus THE
STATE OF AP., REP PP AND ANR.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that criminal law set into motion vide
Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) without application of mind and
for the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint was liable to be quashed under
Section 482 CrPC.
The Court observed that

"The Magistrate has also not applied his mind while referring the matter to the police on
the same day, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., without considering the fact that the
complaint is made nearly after 08 months of the offence occurred, which is contrary to
the observations made by the Apex Court in judgments cited supra. Taking the material
facts into consideration, the facts of the present case squarely fit within the purview
guidelines passed by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal's case and also
the law laid down by the Apex court. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners
liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by invoking the inherent power of the
High Court."
Arbitration Clause In Unstamped Charter Party Agreement Can Invoke Jurisdiction

Under Section 9 Of A&C Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: VR Commodities Private Limited versus Norvic Shipping Asia Pte. Ltd.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a
substantive agreement is an independent and autonomous clause, and even if the
substantive agreement is not duly stamped as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the
arbitration clause is admissible in evidence before the Court who can take into
consideration the arbitration clause to decide an application for grant of interim measures
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice M.
Satyanarayana Murthy, held that since the arbitration agreement is not chargeable with
stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, by applying the doctrine of separability the
arbitration agreement is admissible in evidence before the Court since it is a separate
contract.
[AP Endowments Act] Consider Granting Exemption To Temples Having Less Than Rs.
5 Lakhs Annual Income: AP High Court To State
Case title - Allaparthi Venkata Chalapathi Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
[W.P.No.21805 of 2021]
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State government to consider the grant
of exemption to temples having an annual income of less than Rs.5 lakhs from the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 including the requirement to pay the mandatory contributions.
The Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao issued this order while dealing with a plea
moved by Sri Alaparthamma temple's (Alaparru village of Nagaram) founder family
member, Allaparthi Venkata Chalapathi Rao.
Storage Of Goods Outside The SEZ Area Doesn't Automatically Confer Power On DRI
Officers Under The Customs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Divine Chemtee Ltd and Anr. versus Principal Commissioner of Customs
and Ors.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the Customs authorities (Directorate
General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)) have no power or jurisdiction to inspect or seize
goods in respect of units situated in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) area for a violation
under the Customs Act, 1962 committed prior to 2016.
The Bench, consisting of Justices C. Praveen Kumar and V. Sujatha, held that export
goods, in respect of the SEZ unit, cannot be brought within the purview of the Customs
authority merely because the said goods are taken out from the SEZ area to be
transported to a Port or to a storage unit before being exported. The Court added that
storage of goods outside the SEZ area cannot automatically confer power on the DRI
Officers to initiate proceedings under the Customs Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition Of A Husband In An Inter-
Religious Marriage To Set His Wife At Liberty
Case Title : Chunduru Karthik Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner
seeking a direction to police officials to secure the presence of petitioner's wife before the
Court and set her at liberty.
The facts of the case were that an inter-religious marriage was performed between the
petitioner and detenu as per the rites and customs of Christian religion against the will
and wishes of the parents and other relatives of the detenu. Due to solemnization of their
marriage, the parents and relatives of detenu bore grudge against them and started
harassing with active assistance of Police authorities. However, the Bench comprising of
Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao and Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao on considering the
facts and submissions held that there was no need for interference of parents as the
parties were major and wanted to live together.
Penalty Can't Be Imposed Without Giving The Opportunity Of Hearing To The Taxpayer:
Case Title: S.P.Y. Agro Industries Limited Vs Union of India
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the GST penalty cannot be imposed
without giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.
The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice V. Sujatha has observed that
any rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act, which adversely affects any person,
is possible only after following the principles of natural justice.
"Section 161 of the Act provides that any rectification which adversely affects any person
is possible only after following the principles of natural justice. Since the order impugned
substantially affects the assessee as a penalty is sought to be imposed, which demand did
not form part of the notice dated 13.08.2020, without giving an opportunity of hearing,
the orders under challenge are set aside. The respondents are permitted to proceed
further by issuing a fresh notice and passing orders in accordance with law," the court
added.
"All Family Members Are Being Roped In": Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants
Anticipatory Bail In Case Of Dowry, Attempted Murder
Case Title: Syed Bilal & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a family accused of
demanding dowry from the complainant- daughter in law, and attempting to murder her
by strangulation.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed that though their were disputes between the husband
(petitioner no. 1) and wife (complainant), the entire family had been roped into the
controversy.
Liberty | Don't Make Domiciliary Visits To Former TDP Minister Ch Ayyanna's House
Without There Being Any Crime: Andhra Pradesh HC To Police
Case Title: Sri.Chintakayala Ayyannapatrudu vs State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court last week directed the state police department not to
invade or visit Ch Ayyanna's house without there being any crime.
A single judge bench of Justice C Manavendranth Roy directed the Home department to
submit full details pertaining to the issue and disposed of the case with a direction to the
police – not to make any domiciliary visits to the house of the petitioner.
"However, as it is pleaded in the Writ Petition that as the petitioner made certain
comments against the present government and the ruling party that he may be arrested by
implicating him in a false case and that he would be arrested, considering the said
apprehension of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition
can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent police officials not to make any
such domiciliary visits to the house of the petitioner or interfere with his personal liberty
without there being any crime or F.I.R. registered against him and without following the
due process of law and this would suffice to protect the interests of the petitioner in view
of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
Andhra Pradesh HC Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To One Accused Of "Monitoring Through

WhatsApp" Mob Agitation Over Renaming District After Ambedkar
Case Title: Desamsetti Siva Madhu Kalyan vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused pre-arrest bail to one accused of
"monitoring" through WhatsApp messages, a violent mob that was agitating against
renaming of Konaseema District after Dr. BR Ambedkar, last month.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti noted that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in all the
complaints. Witnesses also specifically mentioned his presence. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case and since the name of the Petitioner reflected in the complaint
as well as the statements of list of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, the
Court found that the Petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail and that his custodial
interrogation is necessary.
Rowdy Sheets Can't Continue Where Accused Is Acquitted & No Criminal Case Is
Pending: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: SHAIK ABDUL GANI MIAH, KURNOOL DIST & ANO vs SECY, HOME
DEPT, HYD & 4 OT

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when an accused person has been acquitted
of criminal cases pending against him and no more criminal cases are pending against
him, then continuing a 'Rowdy Sheet' against such a person is not justified.
A single bench constituting of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath observed,
"It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioners have been acquitted in the said
two murder cases. Admittedly, no criminal case is pending against the petitioners now in
any Court of law. Therefore, when the petitioners are acquitted in the said two murder
cases and when no case is pending against them in any Court at present, there is
absolutely no justification to continue the said rowdy sheets that were opened against
them when the two crimes for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC are
pending against them. The respondents ought to have closed the said rowdy sheets after
they were acquitted in the said two murder cases."
"Sponsored Candidates Are A Distinct Class By Themselves": Andhra Pradesh HC

Denies Reclassification Of Sponsored Medical Seat To General
Case Title: Kuchibhotla Srivatsa Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
In a writ petition challenging rejection of admission under a sponsored seat, the Andhra
Pradesh High Court clarified that 'sponsored candidates' are a distinct class of applicants
who have to fulfill certain eligibility criteria for being treated as such and the Petitioner
did not fulfil the criteria for admission under it; hence, there was no breach of rules or
violation of equality.
The Court held that principle of res judicata will not apply, as urged by the Petitioner, as
the issue of jurisdiction has been left open by the Supreme Court.
Workmen Compensation Act | Loss Of Earning Capacity Upon Amputation Can't Be

Equated To Percentage Of Physical Disability: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Harijana P. Israil & P. Mabu
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where an on-site accident leads to loss of
limb of a workman, he is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923, for loss of 100% earning capacity.
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed that in such cases, loss of earning capacity cannot be
taken to be the same as the percentage of physical disability. It also held that
compensation under the Act becomes payable from the date of accident and hence,
interest on compensation is calculated from the date of accident till actual realization.
The Arbitration Clause Contained In A Manual Issued By The Government As A Generic

Guideline Is Not Binding: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: TBS India Telematic and Biomedical Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Health and Family Welfare, Arbitration Application No. 26 of 2020
The Andhra Pradesh High Court Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra has held
that arbitration clause contained in a government manual as generic guidelines cannot be
invoked by the parties.
The Court also observed that there cannot be an arbitration clause in a sub-contract or in a
separate document when there is no binding agreement between the parties in the first
place.
SC/ST Act Not Attracted When Offence Not Done With Intention That Victim Belongs
To A Particular Caste: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: ILLURI ESWARAIH vs T V JAGGI REDDY
A single judge bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
granted bail to a person accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 376 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2) (va) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bench held that when the offence alleged is not done with an intention that the victim
belongs to a particular case, then the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not get attracted.
Police Can't Carry Out Intrusive Surveillance; Opening Rowdy Sheets, Collecting Photos,
Home Visits As Per Standing Orders Violate Privacy : AP High Court
Case Title : Udathu Suresh vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others

In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the opening of rowdy
sheets to brand persons as "rowdies", collection and display of their photos, domiciliary
visits and summoning to police station as per the existing Police Standing Orders amount
to a "direct infringement of the right to privacy".
The Court held that the Police Standing Orders do not qualify as "law" within the
meaning of Article 21 and without the sanction of law, the police cannot collect the
personal information of persons and conduct home visits.
"This collection of photos; the display of photos; branding a person as "rowdy";

summoning to the Police Station, parading / waiting domiciliary/home visits etc., as per
the Police Station Orders are a direct infringement of the petitioners' right to privacy.
Henceforth with the existing Police Standing Orders the police cannot do the same. The
police cannot summon any person to the Police Station, visit any home or house for
surveillance; for gathering information, take or display photographs, fingerprints etc., or
even classify/ label a person as a ROWDY etc. They cannot carry out intrusive or
obtrusive surveillance", the judgment delivered by a single bench of Justice DVSS
Somajayulu stated.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Rowdy Sheets Citing Udathu Suresh Case Against
'Intrusive Surveillance' By Police
Case Title: K. SRIHARI KUMAR, ANANTAPUR DIST vs SUPERINTENDENT OF

POLICE, ANANTAPUR DIST & 2 OT
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed multiple rowdy sheets, suspect sheets and
history sheets in a batch of writ petitions without going into the merits of the case, in
view of the recent common order of the Court in Udathu Suresh vs State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors.
In Udathu Suresh, a single bench of the High Court had found that the actions of the
police amounted to a violation of the right to privacy, which cannot be restricted without
a law and without fulfilling the qualifications laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of
India.
"No surveillance shall be kept on the petitioners herein on the basis of the said the
rowdy-sheets/suspect-sheets/history-sheets and the petitioners shall not be called to the
Police Station in connection with any such rowdy-sheets/suspect-sheets/history-sheets,
which are now declared as illegal and unconstitutional and which are closed."
Workmen's Compensation Act | Sudden Death When There Was No Indication Of
Previous Disease Treated As Stress Of Work: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. SAMBIREDDY

VENKATARAMANA 5 ORS
Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance appeal, holding that the
Commissioner's findings as to the nature of work are not open to challenge - by an appeal
under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and injury - unless perversity is
apparent on the face of the record.
The Court stressed upon a liberal interpretation of the Act, keeping its beneficial nature in
mind. It held that any sudden death caused shall be treated as stress and strain of the work
when there is no indication about previous disease.
GST Demand On Events Posted On Facebook: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs
Company To Approach Appellate Authority
Case Title: Vasavi Wedding And Event Planners Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while considering a petition challenging GST demand
based on events posted on social media, held that information available on the social
media platform of the petitioner shows that the event was conducted.
The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
dismissed the petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate
Authority.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Three Accused Of Agitation Over Renaming
District After Ambedkar
Case Title: GURRALA MAHAESH Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to three persons accused of being part
of a violent mob that agitated against renaming of Konaseema District after Dr. BR
Ambedkar, last month.
A single judge bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati heard three criminal petitions seeking
regular bail. The accused persons had been charged with offences punishable under the
Indian Penal Code, Andhra Pradesh Police Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. Earlier this month, Justice Subba Reddy Satti had heard two bail petitions of
persons involved in the same incident.
Preliminary Enquiry Necessary Before Registering FIR If Prima Facie Case Of

Cognizable Offence Not Made Out: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : J KRISHNA KISHORE Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the quashing of FIR as the face
value of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint was baseless and no
preliminary enquiry was conducted before registration of the FIR in light of guidelines
laid down in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014).
"It is clear that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, and the evidence
collected in support of the same, do not discloses the commission of offence, and make
out the case against the accused, it is liable to be quashed. In the instant case, though
they have made allegations against the petitioner, there are no material to show that the
petitioner himself has done the acts."
GST Assessment | No Violation Of Natural Justice If Assessee Fails To Respond To

Notice Of Personal Hearing: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s.VASAVI WEDDING and EVENT PLANNERS Versus State of Andhra
Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a challenge to the Assessment Order
issued to the Petitioner under GST Act, 2017 on the ground that there has been no
violation of principles of natural justice as a notice of personal hearing was issued and the
Petitioner was given the opportunity to raise objections but he never responded.
Prohibition Under Arbitration Clause To Refer A Dispute Equivalent To Non-Existence

Of Arbitration Agreement: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Versus The Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an application seeking appointment of

Arbitrator as the Arbitration Agreement had a clear prohibition that the no disputes shall
be referred to arbitration if the insurance company rejected the claim of liability.
In the present case, the insurance company had rejected the entire claim. The Arbitration
Clause set out in the Insurance Policy was as under:
"If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this Policy
(liability being otherwise admitted) such difference shall independently of all other
questions be referred to the decision of a sole arbitrator…"
In the present case, the facts are clear that the respondents have rejected the claim in toto
and the prohibition set out in the arbitration clause would apply to the present facts of the
case. In the circumstances, there would be no necessity to refer the matter to an arbitrator
to decide on the arbitrability of the dispute.
Show-Cause Notice Is A 'Superfluous Formality' If No Prejudice Is Caused: Andhra

Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s. Siva Shankar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition opposing termination of
lease on the ground that except non-issuance of show cause notice, the Petitioner had no
other cause or prejudice.
Justice R. Raghunandan Rao relied on the following principle laid down in State of UP v.
Sudheer Kumar Singh (2020):
"Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to
remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without
more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused."
Exemption In Payment Of Court Fee Is A State Subject & Is Not Guaranteed Under
Legal Services Authorities Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Katepogu Danamaiah v. The Chairman, Legal Service Authority

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Section 12 of Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 does not provide for exemption in payment of Court Fee to the persons
specified therein including Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. For exemption in Court
Fee, provisions under State Court Fee Act have to be applied.
Explaining the procedure to be followed, a division bench comprising Justices C.Praveen

Kumar and Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda said,
"A person is not entitled to claim exemption of Court Fee under Section 12 (a) or under
Section 12(g) of the Act, on a mere representation that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe or is not meeting the financial requirements as contemplated under
Section 12(h) of the Act. What all has to be done by the said person is that he should
approach the Legal Services Authority and seek help under the provisions of Legal
Services Authorities Act. If the concerned Legal Services Authority is satisfied that such a
person satisfies the criteria specified in Section 12 of the Act, then it may be open to the
concerned authority to invoke the stipulations contained in the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.73 Law dated 19.06.2007 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 68 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, subject to the
stipulations contained in the said G.O."
Abetment Of Suicide | Mere Allegation Of Pressure At Workplace Without Any Specific

Act Will Not Attract S.306 IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: B.SRIDEVI Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to an accused under
Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (punishment for abetment of suicide).
Justice Subba Reddy Satti placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in Geo Varghese v.
State of Rajasthan (2021) to reiterate that mere allegation of pressure or harassment
without any positive act would not suffice to attract ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.
Decree Is Ex-Parte In Nature If Defendant Could Not Adduce Evidence After Filing
Written Statement: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : S SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU Versus V.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently set aside a decree and judgment which was ex-
parte in nature as the defendant could not adduce evidence during trial due to ill health.
"the impugned decree and judgment are only ex- parte in nature since the evidence of
defendant was not adduced in this case and he failed to attend the Court…So there is no
demure that in the instant case also the decree and judgment are ex-parte though the trial
Court rendered an elaborate judgment. In that view also we think an opportunity should
be given to the defendant to contest the suit by setting aside the impugned judgment and
decree."
S.12 Workmen's Compensation Act Secures Right To Compensation Of Employees

Engaged By Principal Employer Through Contractor: Andhra Pradesh HC
Title: AP GENCO,RTPP,CUDDAPAH vs Y.DEVANANDAM & 4 OTHERS
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has made it clear that Section 12 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 is intended to secure an employee's right to claim compensation
not only against his immediate employer who, in the Act, is referred to as a contractor,
but also against the person who had employed such contractor to execute the work.
A single judge bench of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao observed,
"The main object of enacting Section 12 of the Act is to secure compensation to the
employees who have been engaged by the principal employer through the contractor for
the work which the principal employer is supposed to carry out by his own employees."
Mere Allegation Of Harassment Doesn't Attract S.306 IPC: AP High Court Grants Pre-
Arrest Bail To Women Accused Of Abetting Their Husbands' Suicides
Title: Attuluru Ramamoorthy vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A single judge bench of Justice Subba Reddy of Andhra Pradesh High Court granted
anticipatory bail to two women accused of abetment of suicide by their husbands, in
separate cases.
There must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement towards the commission of
suicide, the Court said. It noted that conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code cannot be sustained merely on allegations of harassment, without there being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on part of the accused, which led or
compelled another person to commit suicide.
Article 162 | Govt Has Discretion To Establish Community Health Centre At A Particular
Place: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Title: PADALA DHARMARAJU vs THE SATE OF AP
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently cited State's expansive executive powers under
Article 162 of the Constitution to hold that it has the discretion to situate community
health centres.
Justice M. Ganga Rao thus quashed a writ petition against the government decision of
constructing a new Community Health Centre in Z.Ragampeta Village instead of
Jaggampeta Village.
Court Can Direct Passport Officer To Issue Police Clearance Certificate To A Citizen:
Title: Pasagadula Sai Kiran v. The Union of India
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently directed a Regional Passport Officer to issue
police clearance certificate to an Angola based Indian citizen, after recording all the
criminal cases filed against him, for renewal of his visa.
A single judge bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao observed that the authority had been
issuing such certificates to citizens staying abroad and it cannot take the stand that since
it is a "voluntary service" there cannot be any direction to issue or not to issue such
certificates.
Arnesh Kumar Guidelines: AP High Court Directs Police To Comply With Arrest
Procedure, Issue 41-A CrPC Notices
Title: GALIVEETI SIVA RAMI REDDY Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA

PRADESH
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently disposed of two applications for anticipatory
bail in separate cases, while directing the state Police to ensure that the procedure and
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar are complied
with before effecting arrest.
The judgment obligates the Police to issue notice of appearance under Section 41-A
CrPC in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required.
Arbitration Agreement Not A Bar For Referring Parties To Facilitation Council Under
MSMED Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s. Dalapathi Constructions versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a reference to the Facilitation Council
under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act)
for conciliation and subsequent arbitration, is not barred on account of the presence of an
arbitration agreement between the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that even if the arbitration
agreement between the parties provides for a different method of constituting an Arbitral
Tribunal, the party can be referred to the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the
MSMED Act for recovery of its dues.
Denial Of Equal Pay For Equal Work Offends Articles 14 & 21 Of Constitution: Andhra
Pradesh High Court
Title: Vallepu Naga Raju Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has overturned the State's decision to not increase the
remuneration granted to Computer Assistants engaged on contractual basis in various
district courts of the state, attached to the post of data processing officer, with effect from
01.04.2019.
A division bench of Justice A.V. Sesha and Justice G. Ramakrishna Prasad held that
having extended the benefit of revised remuneration earlier, on par with the data
processing officers, there was absolutely no justification in denying the benefits now.
Rape Case Can't Be Lodged Merely Because Complainant's Consensual Relationship

With Accused Did Not Work Out: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Title: JATOTH ADITYA RATHOD Versus State of Andhra Pradesh
A single judge bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has
reiterated that failure of a consensual relationship cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR
for offence of Rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").
The petitioner, accused of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(N), 417, 420,
323, 384, 506 read with 109, IPC, had sought a regular bail. The complainant had stated
that she and the petitioner were in a relationship.
Brothel Customers Indulging In Sexual Intercourse With Prostitutes Can't Be Booked

Under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: Korada Subrahmanyam versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a
brothel customer under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
A bench of Justice Ninala Jayasurya reiterated the settled legal position that a customer
who visited the brothel to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute on payment of cash is
not liable for prosecution for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act.
S.311 CrPC Obligates Trial Court To Recall Witness If Its Evidence Is Necessary To
Decide Real Controversy: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Seva Swarna Kumari @ Kumaramma and others Versus State of Andhra
Pradesh
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (AP) 113
Andhra Pradesh High Court, while setting aside an order passed in a criminal petition for
trial of cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, reiterated that, while dealing with applications under Section 311, CrPC, the Court is
required to exercise its discretion judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily.
'Cross examination of a witness in a criminal case is an important part of trial and it is

only means to elicit truth from the witness to prove the innocence of the accused. If, such
right is denied, the petitioners/accused will be put to serious loss and it amounts to denial
of fair trial….According to Section 311 Cr.P.C., any Court may, at any stage of any
inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or
examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-
examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or
recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just
decision of the case. Section 311 Cr.P.C contains two limbs. The first limb is discretion of
the Court and the second limb does not confer any discretion and it is obligatory for the
Court to summon, recall and re-examine a witness, if the Court finds that the evidence of
the proposed witness is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties,
effectively."
Mob Violence | Bail Can Be Granted Without Costs In Absence Of Material To Show
Accused Person Damaged Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: YARRA SRINU Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to the petitioners who were
accused in mob violence without imposition of costs as there was no material to show
that the petitioners had damaged the property.
Failed Relationship Not Ground To Lodge FIR For Repeated Rape U/S 376(2)(n) IPC:
Case Title: JATOTH ADITYA RATHOD Versus State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent case reiterated the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan (2022 Live Law (SC) 599)
that if the complainant willingly stayed in a relationship, then the relationship eventually
not working out cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section
376(2)(n) of IPC.
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati was of the view that the complaint was lodged when the
relationship was not working out. Since the Apex Court decision squarely was applicable
to the facts of the case, the Court granted regular bail with certain conditions.
S.482 CrPC Petition Maintainable In Exceptional Cases Where Remedy Of Revision U/S
397 CrPC Is Also Available: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s. Design Tech Systems Pvt.Ltd., Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a petition under Section 482
CrPC is maintainable as the Court below was erroneous in passing orders under Section
451 CrPC to freeze amounts (property) in petitioner's account which had no reasonable
connection with any commission of an offence.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan
(2016) to reiterate that Section 397 CrPC was not a bar to maintain the petition under
Section 482 CrPC in exceptional circumstances.
Minor Violations In Construction Of Building Which Do Not Affect Public At Large Can
Be Considered To Be Regularised: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: E.V. Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the Writ Petition to not allow
the Corporation to demolish the building of the owner/petitioner till his explanation to the
notice and request for regularization are considered with reasons. The court relied on
catena of decisions related to illegal constructions to hold that deviation can be
regularised if it is trivial and do not affect public at large. Additionally, the Apex Court in
Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) has laid emphasis on the point
of necessity of giving reasons by a body or authority in support of its decision if such
decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
"Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations...Reasons facilitate the process
of judicial review by superior courts."
Lessee Mining Company Liable To Pay 'Dead Rent' When Unable To Extract Mineral
For Non-Availability Of Clearances: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s. Mangalore Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Mangalore Minerals
Private Limited for a declaration that the action of the State Government in insisting for
payment of dead rent for the period 2013-20, even though the quarry was not in operation
for want of environmental clearance, as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the
Constitution of India.
The Court observed,
"It would be an implied condition of the lease that the responsibility of obtaining
necessary clearances for carrying on mining activity would be on the lessee. In such a
situation, it would not be permissible for a lessee to avoid payment of dead rent on the
ground of lack of clearances for carrying on mining activity."
Municipalities Cannot Grant Permission For Installation Of Statute/ Structures In Public
Utility Places: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Title: Guduru Sekhar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has made it clear that Municipal Corporation or
Municipalities cannot grant any permission for installation of any statute or construction
of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
A single judge bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari further held that even if any permission
was granted previously pursuant to which any statute is being installed now that can also
not be done contrary to the specific order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.02.2013.
Acquittal In Criminal Case Can Be Considered To Determine Punishment In Department

Enquiry: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Ram Chandra Reddy v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ananthapur &
Anr.
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the order of acquittal in a
criminal case can be considered in a punishment to be imposed in the departmental
enquiry.
However, the order of acquittal will not be determinative where (i) the order of acquittal
has not been passed on the same set of facts or same set of evidence; (ii) where the
delinquent officer was charged with something more than the subject matter of the
criminal case and. or covered by a decision of civil court.
Criminal Proceedings And Disciplinary Enquiry Can Go On Simultaneously: Andhra

Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Subba Rao v. Enquiry Officer, Cotton Corporation of India & Ors.
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court placing reliance on multitude of
decisions reiterated the point that disciplinary proceedings should not be stayed only on
the sole ground that criminal proceedings are pending. In the facts of the case, the
criminal proceedings were installed for last more than almost 12 years without any
progress.
Furthermore, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed that the charges framed against the
petitioner in the departmental proceedings were different from the charges in criminal
proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section
109 IPC. In addition, there was no question of any disclosure of defence in the
departmental proceedings as in Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the
onus was on the accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the
known source of income.
Workmen Compensation Award Must Record Finding On Jurisdictional Fact Whether

Injury/Disease Is Caused Incidental To Duties Of Service: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. M. Lakshmi Ramateertham
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the Commissioner in an
award under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 has to make a specific finding on
whether the injury has been caused to employee by accident arising out of and in the
course of employment or if the employee has contracted any occupational disease
peculiar to that employment.
PwD Act | Alternate Employment With Same Pay Benefits To Employee Who Suffers
Disability During Course Of Employment A Statutory Right: Andhra HC
Case Title: Ch. S. Rajeswara Rao v. Govt. of AP, Transport Department
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed payment of wages to a
workman from the date he suffered from disability during course of employment till he
was provided an alternative employment under Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities
(Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995.
"Section 47 itself provides for grant of alternative employment to a disabled employee or

on equivalent posts carrying the same pay scale and not to oust such employee from the
service."
Payment Of Gratuity Act Is A Beneficial Legislation For Employees And Overrides

Other Enactments: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. The Controlling Authority
under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972

In a recent ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 has to be interpreted in favour of workman and it overrides all other statutory
legislations.
The court relied on Apex Court decision in Beed District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra (2006) in which it was held "the Payment of Gratuity Act is a
beneficial statute. When two views are possible, having regard to the purpose the Act
seeks to achieve being a social welfare legislation, it may be construed in favour of the
workman."
Punishment Of Dismissal Proportionate For Bank Employees For Failure To Discharge

Duty: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: Harinarayan Seet versus Andhra Bank
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that Bank employees are required to
exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity and if any such employee is found
guilty of failure to discharge his duty with diligence, he can be meted with the dismissal
from service as a proportionate punishment.
The court placed reliance on Apex Court decisions in Chairman & Managing Director,
United Commercial Bank (supra), Canara Bank v. VK. Awasthy (2005) to hold as:
"Once it is recorded, concurrently, that the petitioner being the employee of the bank and
having failed to discharge his duty in processing in the matter of grant of loans which
were found to be in the names of fake pattadars, considering the finding of proved guilt
recorded concurrently by the disciplinary as also by the appellate authority, the
punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charges."
GST Refund Application: Andhra Pradesh High Court Excludes Period From 1st March,
2020 to 28th February, 2022 For Limitation
Case Title: M/S. Gandhar oil refinery (India) Limited v. Assistant commissioner of sales
tax
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has relied on the notification dated 05.07.2022 and held
that the period from 1st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022, for the computation of the
period of limitation for filing refund applications shall stand excluded.
The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has
observed that the application for refund was not made beyond the period of limitation and
remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration in accordance
with the law.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Rejection Of GST Refund Application By Axis
Bank
Case Title: Axis Bank Ltd. Versus The Union Of India
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of a GST refund application
by Axis Bank and remanded the matter back to the original authority.
referred to a circular dated 25.09.2021 issued clarifying that the insertion of rule (1A) to
Rule 89 provides a time limit of 2 years. The two-year time limit would apply from the
date of the introduction of the said rule and not from the date of payment of GST.
Review Of Judgment/Order Passed Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act Is Not

Permissible: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Nagireddy Srinivasa Rao versus Chinnari Suryanarayana
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that review of an order/judgment passed under
Section 11 of the A&C Act is not permissible.
The Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that power of review is the creature of a
statute and in absence of any such provision in a statute, an order/judgment cannot be
reviewed on its merit unless it is for some procedural irregularity.
The Court held that the A&C does not, either expressly or by implication, provide for any
review of an order passed under Section 11 of the Act, therefore, the Court cannot review
such an order on its merit.
Mutation Order Cannot Be Based On Title Deed When Title To Property Under Dispute:
Case Title: Dr. P. Pranjali v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while hearing a writ petition challenging the mutation
proceedings and the mutation order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Tirupati
('Commissioner'), held that mutation orders must be made on the basis of possession and
not based on title deed, when the title itself is contested.
"It is only in the case of undisputed document of title that mutation can be made based on
the title deed, but where it is a contested case of title based on so many documents, as in
the present case, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hold the gift deed dated
14.11.2006 as valid and its cancellation deed dated 07.09.2010 as contrary to rule...The
impugned order of mutation in favour of the 3rd respondent could not be legally passed
based upon title in view of the gift deed dated 14.11.2006. The order is passed not on the
basis of possession but on the title deed with respect to which there was contest," said the
Court.
"Violation Of Article 26(d)" : High Court Stops AP Govt From Taking Over Ahobilam
Mutt Temple
Case Title: K.B. SETHURAMAN versus STATE OF A.P.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the State's decision to appoint an
'Executive Officer' to control and manage the affairs of Ahobilam Temple in Kurnool is
violative of Article 26(d) of the Constitution and affects the Mathadipathis' right of
administration.
The division bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice DVSS
Somayajulu made it clear that the Temple is an integral part of the Ahobilam Math,
which is situated in Tamilnadu.
"Ahobilam Temple is an integral and inseparable part of Ahobilam Math, which was
established as a part of propagation of Hindu religion and for rendering spiritual service
for propagating Sri Vaishnavism. The successive Jeeyars are the trustees of the Ahobilam
Devasthanam and since the Government cannot appoint an Executive Officer for the
Ahobilam Math, it has no power to appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam
Temple by treating it separate from the Math. Appointing an Executive Officer for
Temple, which is a part of the Math, is violative of Article 26(d) of the Constitution of
India, as the same affects Jeeyars'/Mathadipathis' right of administration".
Second Writ On Same Subject Without Disclosing Pending Litigation: Andhra Pradesh
HC Imposes 1 Lakh Cost, Initiates Criminal Contempt Action
Case Title: P. Ranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a second writ petition filed by the
petitioner against the same respondents and for the same relief, observed that the filing of
the second writ petition amounted to abuse of the process of the Court.
Rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner as a mere 'afterthought', the bench said:
"Filing of the second petition without making disclosure of the 1st petition on the same
subject by the same petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is an effort to get
an order, which might have been in his favour, contrary to the earlier order passed in
W.P.No.32260 of 2022. The fact of filing and pendency of the earlier W.P.No.32260 of
2022 is a material fact and suppression or concealment of such fact is impermissible to
the litigant and even as technique of advocacy. Filing of the false affidavit by the
petitioner is an evil and deserves to be curved with strong hand to preserve the purity of
the judicial administration."
Rival Groups Shall Not Be Permitted To Meet In Proximity Of Amaravati Maha

Padayatra Against Three Capitals: High Court To State
Case Title: Amaravati Parirakshana Samiti v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday, while hearing a writ petition filed by the
Amaravati Parirakshana Samiti Trust, passed multiple directions to ensure the smooth
conduct of the Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Arasavilli, in protest against the
proposed establishment of three capitals in the State.
The single bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao ordered that the procession of the
Padayatra cannot consist of more than 600 persons whose details have already been
furnished to the State. The Court ordered that any person seeking to express solidarity
would have to express such solidarity only from the side lines and not by joining the
procession.
Right To Contest Elections Only A Statutory Right, Not A Fundamental Right: Andhra
Pradesh High Court
Case Title: C. Vasudeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the right to contest elections is not a
fundamental right but only a statutory right. The observation was made by a single bench
of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy in context of the AP Societies Registration Act,
2001.
"Right to contest election is not a fundamental right. It is only a statutory right. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the fundamental right of the petitioner is violated and seeking
enforcement of the same that the present Writ Petition is maintainable," said the Court.
Weight Of Arbitration Award (Delivery) Cannot Be Just 55 Grams: Andhra Pradesh High
Court
Case Title: SAMPATHRAO SUDHAKAR v. EMIRATES INTERNATIONAL

AIRLINES, ICOMAOA No. 1&2 of 2019
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitration award would weight more
than 55 grams and a consignment weighing 55 grams cannot be deemed to be a valid
delivery of award.
The bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao also held that an arbitral award passed in
violation of Section 7 and 11 of the A&C Act would be a nullity. It held that in absence
of an arbitration agreement, there cannot be any arbitration between the parties. Moreover,
in absence of the consent of both the parties, an arbitrator cannot assume jurisdiction.
Once Registered As MSME, The Nature Of Activity Cannot Be A Bar To Any Relief
Under The Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Dalapathi Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. W.P. NO.
4652 of 2022
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once an enterprise is registered with the
local MSME Council, it is entitled to all the benefits of the Act and the nature of activity
between the parties cannot stand as a bar to any relief provided under the act.
The bench of Justice R. Ragunandan Rao held that MSME Council cannot dismiss an
application under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the activity between the parties
was merely a 'trading activity', thus, not covered by the provisions of the act.
'Mahapadayatra' Can Be Conducted Only With 600 Identified Farmers : Andhra Pradesh
High Court
Case Title: Amaravati Parirakshana Samiti versus State of A.P.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to modify restrictions imposed by it on 'Maha
Padayatra' announced by Amaravati Parirakshana Samiti.
The Samiti had announced 'Maha Padayatra' from Amaravati to Arasavilli for expressing
their protest against the proposed establishment of three capitals in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
18% GST Payable On Manufacturing Of Alcohol For Human Consumption By Way Of

Job Work: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s.Esveeaar Distilleries Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner

(State Tax)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that 18% GST is payable on the manufacturing
of alcohol for human consumption by way of job work.
observed that alcoholic liquor is not considered a food. Services by way of job work in
relation to the manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption are not eligible for
5% GST.
Other Significant Developments
Criminal Case Files Involving State Minister Stolen From Nellore Court: Andhra Pradesh
HC Transfers Probe To CBI
Case Title: In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has asked the CBI to probe into the theft of important
case files from a Nellore Court. The case involves a serving Minister in the Government
of Andhra Pradesh.
Exercising suo moto writ jurisdiction, a division bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar
Mishra and Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy said:
"When such importance is accorded to criminal cases against M.L.As. and M.Ps., the
court concerned at Nellore as well as the State machinery including the law enforcing
agency should have taken due care and caution to secure the case property; otherwise, in
the absence of case property being produced and proved in the court, trial against M.L.As.
and M.Ps. may fail for lack of evidence. It is for this reason the matter assumes
importance."
Andhra Pradesh High Court Stays The Operation Of The Confiscation Notice Under GST
Case Title: Matrix Traders Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice A.V. Sesha Sai and Justice Ravi Nath
Tilhari has stayed the operation of the Confiscation Notice issued under Section 130 of
the CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that, with effect from January 01, 2022, the non-
obstante clause has been removed from Section 130.
The Finance Act, 2022 amended Section 130 of the CGST Act to delink the proceedings
relating to the confiscation of goods or conveyances and the levy of penalties from the
proceedings under section 129 relating to the detention, seizure, and release of goods and
conveyances in transit.
'No Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard': Plea In Andhra Pradesh HCChallenges

Provisions Relating To Cancellation Of FCRA Certificate
A writ petition has been filed before the Andhra Pradesh HighCourt challenging the
constitutional validity of certain provisions of theForeign Contribution Regulation Act,
pertaining to cancellation of FCRAcertificate.
The petition seeks declaration that Sections 14(1) (d), 14(3) and15 of Foreign
Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 and Rule 15 of the ForeignContribution Regulation
Rules, 2011 are ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 ofthe Constitution and consequently for
quashing of the aforementioned provisionsas null and void.
Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Elevation Of 7 Advocates As Andhra Pradesh High

Court Judges
The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 29th January,2022 has approved the
proposal for elevation of the following Advocates asJudges in the Andhra Pradesh High
Court:
1. Shri Konakanti Sreenivasa Reddy @Srinivasa Reddy,
2. Shri Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad,
3. Shri Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda,
4. Shri Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao,

5. Shri Satti Subba Reddy,
6. Shri Ravi Cheemalapati, and
7. Smt. Vaddiboyana Sujatha
Andhra Pradesh High Court Seeks Twitter's Explanation ForFailing To Remove

'Derogatory' Content Against Judiciary, Judges
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday sought an explanation fromTwitter for its
failure to remove several 'derogatory' comments posted againstthe judiciary and some
High Court judges as per High Court's order. Twitter hasbeen called upon to file a reply
by February 7, 2022.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishraand Justice M.

Satyanarayana Murthy is currently hearing a suo moto case in connection with
abusiveand threatening social media posts made by certain members of the ruling partyof
Andhra Pradesh against judges of the High Court.
President Appoints 7 New Judges To Andhra Pradesh HighCourt
In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 ofthe Constitution of India,
the President of India has appointed seven newjudges in Andhra Pradesh High Court with
effect from the date they assumecharge of their respective offices. The Supreme Court
Collegium had recommendedthese names for elevation on January 29. Before the present
notification, theAP High Court had 20 judges out of a sanctioned strength of 37. With the
newappointments, the vacancies will reduce to 10.
"Have Removed 'Derogatory' Content/Comments AgainstJudiciary, Judges": Twitter

Informs Andhra Pradesh High Court
Filing an affidavit in compliance with the order passed by theAndhra Pradesh High Court
on January 31, 2022, the Social Media giant Twitterhas informed the High Court that it
has taken necessary steps to remove several'derogatory' comments posted against the
judiciary and some High Court judgesas per HC's order.
Essentially, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier sought anexplanation from
Twitter for its failure to remove several 'derogatory'comments posted against the
judiciary and some High Court judges as per HighCourt's order.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Stays Online Sale Of Cinema Tickets On GovtPlatforms
Case Title : Bigtree Entertainment Private Limited v. State ofAndhra Pradesh

On Friday, the Andhra Pradesh High Court stayed the online sale ofcinema tickets on
government platforms and restrained the State government fromgoing ahead with the sale
of cinema tickets through an exclusive portal whichit planned to launch, till July 27.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra andJustice D.V.S.S.

Somayajulu issued an interim order in favour of thepetitioners-ticket aggregators
including BookMyShow.
"This Court is of theopinion that the existing state of things must be preserved as it is.
Hence,there shall be an interim order as prayed for and the respondents arerestrained
from giving effect to and operating the online ticketing solution forticketing for the
cinema theatres and cine-goers in Andhra Pradesh under onlinesystem as enacted under
the impugned Act, Rules or under the impugnedprovisions."

AP HC JUDGEMENTS 2022 DIGEST ≈ PK ≈

Uploaded by

AP HC JUDGEMENTS 2022 DIGEST ≈ PK ≈

Uploaded by

Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (AP )1- 137 ]

Shaik Gouse Peer v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 1

T. Mahaboob Basha Versus Dowlath Bee 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 2

Thammisetti Narasimha Rao Versus The State of AP 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 5

K Ravi Prasad Reddy v. G Giridhar 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 7

Attal Plastics v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 8

Balina Srimannarayana Versus S.R.R.Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 11

M Rama Chandraiah Versus Valleupu China Ankaiah 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 12

Gangisetty Anuradha v. Bijala Subramanyam 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 19

K V Krishnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 21

D. Vidya Sagar v. Union of India and 4 other 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 24

Mangalagiri Textile Mills v. State Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 25

Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022

Karukola Vasudevarao v. Karri Suseelamma & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 28

V.Manjula Versus v. Jagadish 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 30

M. Mohanraj v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 32

Ali Cotton Mill v. Appellate Joint Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 35

Chepala Appala Raju v. State ofAndhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 37

S Muragan @ Muruga Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 40

A. Satyanarayana, Versus M. Panduranga Rao 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 41

K Prabhakar Reddy VersusLakkaraja Munirathnam 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 42

Dommeti Chakradhar Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 43

Geddam Bullayya Versus TheState Of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 44

N. Srinath Reddy Versus Stateof Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 45

N. Gopinath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 46

Dommaraju Vinay v. The State of A.P., 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 50

Gadda Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 52

Byalla Devadas v.Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 53

CY. Pratap Reddy v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 55

N. Appa Rao v. The State Of AP, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 56

Dinesh @ Dinesh v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 57

Arun Kumar Mahipal Singh v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 60

Edhellacheruvu Balarami Reddy v. Edhellacheruvu Munaswamy Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw

Gampala Naga Raju v. Shaik Nazeerunnisa, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 62

Sunkara Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 63

Uggina Nagamani Versus Kona Persisurani, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 65

Chelluboyina. Nagaraju v. Molleti Ramudu alias Vijayalakshmi, 2022 LiveLaw (AP)

Ajay Kumar Parasaramka v. Pradeep Kumar Rath, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 68

Mara Manohar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 70

Chunduru Karthik Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 82

S.P.Y. Agro IndustriesLimited Vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 83

Sri.Chintakayala Ayyannapatrudu vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 85

Kuchibhotla Srivatsa Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 88

The Divisional Manager,M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Harijana P.

ILLURI ESWARAIH vs T V JAGGI REDDY 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 91

K. SRIHARI KUMAR, ANANTAPUR DIST vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v.SAMBIREDDY VENKATARAMANA 5 ORS

GURRALA MAHAESH Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2022LiveLaw

J KRISHNA KISHORE Versus TheState of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 97

M/s.VASAVI WEDDING and EVENTPLANNERS Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

Katepogu Danamaiah v. TheChairman, Legal Service Authority 2022 LiveLaw (AP)

S SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDUVersus V.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU 2022 LiveLaw (AP)

AP GENCO,RTPP,CUDDAPAH vs Y.DEVANANDAM & 4 OTHERS 2022

Attuluru Ramamoorthy vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw(AP)

PADALA DHARMARAJU vs THE SATE OF AP 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 106

Pasagadula Sai Kiran v. The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 107

GALIVEETI SIVA RAMI REDDY Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA

YARRA SRINU Versus THESTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2022 LiveLaw (AP)

M/s. Design Tech SystemsPvt.Ltd., Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Guduru Sekhar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw(AP) 119

Ram Chandra Reddy v. IndustrialTribunal-cum-Labour Court Ananthapur & Anr.

The New India Assurance CompanyLtd. v. Smt. M. Lakshmi Ramateertham 2022

The District CooperativeCentral Bank Ltd. v. The Controlling Authority under

Harinarayan Seet versus AndhraBank 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 125

Nagireddy Srinivasa Rao versusChinnari Suryanarayana 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 128

Dr. P. Pranjali v. Stateof Andhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 129

P. Ranga Rao v. State ofAndhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 131

C. Vasudeva Rao v. State ofAndhra Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 133

SAMPATHRAO SUDHAKAR v. EMIRATESINTERNATIONAL AIRLINES,

Amaravati Parirakshana Samitiversus State of A.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 136

M/s.Esveeaar DistilleriesPrivate Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Judgements/Orders This Year

Person In Possession & Enjoyment Of Property Can't Be Dispossessed By State

Case Title: Shaik Gouse Peer v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 1

Case Title: T. Mahaboob Basha Versus Dowlath Bee