AP HIGH COURT Judgements/Orders 2022 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 2 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. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 3 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 4 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 5 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.RC 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.PC 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 6 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) Ina 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 7 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 8 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 9 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 10 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: e physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or e ademand or request for sexual favours; or e 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. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 11 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 12 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 13 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 14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. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 15 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.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 16 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. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 17 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. Itis 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.1.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.PC to quash the FI.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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 18 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 19 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: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: Vaddu Lakshmidevamma @ Lakshmi Devi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 20 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 21 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: VINT| RAMAKRISHNA, W.G.DIST. & ORS v. PP., HYD Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 23 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Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 24 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 25 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. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 28 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 29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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 30 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 31 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 32 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.PC.," 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 33 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 34 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Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 35 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 36 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 37 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 38 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 40 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: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title : A. Satyanarayana, Versus M. Panduranga Rao Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 41 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 42 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 43 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 44 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: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: N. Srinath Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 45 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 46 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 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 47 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.