Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: September 15 - September 21, 2025

Nominal Index:

Yemu Kondal Rao v. The State Of AP and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 149

V.D. Moorthy v. The State of AP and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 150

Shaik Masthan Vali v. Kummaru Durga and Batch: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 151

Realme Mobile Telecommunications v. State of AP: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 152

Nakul Chandra Biswal v. Badaru Srinivasa Rao and Another: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 153

M/s. Orind Special Refractories Ltd. v. M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 154

Bhavanam China Venkata Reddy v. Dantla Subba Reddy and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 155

Judgments/Final Orders

'Politically Motivated': AP High Court Junks PIL Challenging Display Of Deputy CM's Portraits In Public Offices

Case Title: Yemu Kondal Rao v. The State Of AP and Others

Case Number: WP(PIL) NO: 169 of 2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 149

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which challenged the display of pictures and portraits of the Deputy Chief Minister in government offices across the State.

The PIL petition, filed by Yemu London Rao, was stated to "safeguard public interest” and argued that the said act of displaying the portraits of the Deputy Chief Minister violated the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Dismissing the PIL petition, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed,

“We fail to understand as to how the display of a portrait or a picture in a Government office of a Deputy Chief Minister would in any manner affect any of the rights of a citizen under the Constitution in the absence of any specific statutory prohibition on such display. The petition is clearly filed with a political motive.”

S.179(1) BNSS | Police Cannot Compel Presence Of 'Any Person' Acquainted With Case As Matter Of Right: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: V D MOORTHY v. THE STATE OF AP and others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 22577/2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 150

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the power of a police officer under Section 179(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to secure the attendance of “any person”, is territorially restricted to persons residing within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining station, and the power, therefore, does not extend to persons residing beyond his jurisdiction. It further added that a policeman cannot secure the presence of such a person “as a matter of right.”

Section 179(1) authorises a Police Officer to secure the presence of “any person” subject to two conditions—- (1) if such person appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and, (2) if such person resides within the limits of his own Police Station or any adjoining station. However, the first proviso to Section 179(1) prescribes exceptions to the above-mentioned power and exempts a—- (i) male person under the age of 15 years or above the age of 60 years, (ii) woman irrespective of the age, (iii) mentally or physically disabled person, and (iv) person with acute illness. Further, under the second proviso, if such a person is willing to attend at the police station, he/she may be permitted so to do.

Explaining the application of the first proviso, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed–

“The proviso, referred to supra, makes it clear that the Police Officer can issue an order in writing to them by virtue of the power under Section 179(1) of BNSS, but he cannot secure their presence before him as a matter of right. Meaning thereby, the said persons have no legal obligation to appear before him in obedience to the notice under Section 179(1) of BNSS, in the light of the exceptions. Such being the case, the Police Officer can examine such person at his residence. If any person receiving notice falls into one of the categories mentioned above, he is not bound to attend before the Police Officer. His failure to attend would not lead to any legal action. The object of this proviso appears to be, such persons, being vulnerable, cannot be troubled by the Police Officer in the name of investigation.”

AP High Court Rejects Appeals Filed Under Land Grabbing Act After Abolition Of Special Court, Says Govt Has No Power To Vest Jurisdiction In HC

Case Title: Shaik Masthan Vali v. Kummaru Durga and batch

Case Number: LAND GRABBING APPEAL No. 20 of 106 and batch

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 151

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a host of appeals which were either transferred or directly filed before it after abolition of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (1982 Act) by the State vide a Government Order of 2016.

Noting that the vested right of appeal perishes when an appellate Court is abolished without constitution of an alternative Forum for disposal of pending matters or appeals, a division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held,

“The G.O.Ms.No.420, dated 02.09.2016 to the extent of abolition of the Special Court by notification is within the powers of the State Government, but to the extent the said G.O.Ms.No.420 provided for the High Court as the Appellate Court to which the Appeals under the Act 1982 will be transferred and decided as the Appellate Court under the Act 1982, is beyond the statutory powers conferred on the State Government and to that extent, the Government Order is in transgression of the executive powers of the State and in excess of the power conferred by the Act 1982.”

Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Police Protection To Realme For Transferring Stock Amid Unrest At Manufacturing Facility

Case Title: Realme Mobile Telecommunications vs State of AP

Case Number: WP 25285/2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 152

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted police protection to Realme Mobile Telecommunications for moving manufactured items from Wingtech Mobile Communications amid the protests and strikes at the latter company.

The order was passed by Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, in a writ petition filed by Realme. The court said:

“Considering the submissions made, the concerned Station House Officer is directed to look into the representation made by the petitioners and attend their cause within a couple of days by taking appropriate steps, with necessary police personnel, to ensure that the stock is lifted from the company without any untoward incident. It is further clarified that the petitioners shall bear the expenditure.”

O.15A R.2 CPC | Defaulting Tenant Not Only Liable To Pay Dues Till Date Of Fixation Of Rent But Also Thereafter: AP High Court

Case Title: NAKUL CHANDRA BISWAL v. BADARU SRINIVASA RAO and another

Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2017/2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 153

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that under Rule 15A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), a defaulting tenant who disputes arrears of rent is required to not only pay arrears up to the date of filing of the suit, but also the arrears accruing until the fixation of rent by the Court and thereafter.

In the present case involving a tenant defaulting in payment of rent, the Trial Court passed an award fixing the provisional rent at Rs 20,000, with a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.21,10,000 as arrears of rent from 2016 to 2025, and to continue to deposit the future rent at Rs 20,000 per month.

Against this backdrop, Justice Raghunandan Rao explained that Order 15A of CPC provides for two situations— one, where the defendant, while filing his written statement, is required to deposit the undisputed arrears of rent up to the date on which the written statement is filed and the further amount as and when they become due, and; second, where the Court is required to go into the fixation of rent where the defendant pleads that no arrears of rent or default exist. The Court stated,

“Upon such determination, the defendant would be liable to deposit the rent fixed by the Court within the time stipulated by the Court and to continue to deposit the rent which becomes payable thereafter.”

Noting that the present case falls under the second eventuality, the Court added,

“In the present case, the Trial Court fixed a lump sum amount of the arrears of rent due from 2015 to 2025. Though the order may not clearly signify the contours set out in Rule 2 Order 15A, the order cannot be faulted on the ground of violation of Order 15A. This is because, Rule 2 of Order 15A casts an obligation on the petitioner/deponent to not only clear the arrears of rent due till the date of fixation of rent but to clear all such arrears of rent, which have fallen due after the date of fixation of rent.”

Majority Arbitral Award Where Concurring & Dissenting Opinions Are Separately Signed Is Valid U/S 31 A&C Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s. Orind Special Refractories Ltd. v. M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd

Case Number: INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 1 of 2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 154

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a majority arbitral award would be deemed valid under Section 31(1) and (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act), if the separate concurring and dissenting awards are each duly signed by their respective Arbitrators.

For reference– Section 31(1) of the 1996 Act provides that the arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal; and Section 31(2) provides that in arbitral proceedings consisting of more than one arbitrator, signatures of the majority of all the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be sufficient so long as the reason for any omitted signatures is stated.

In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal comprised three Arbitrators where— the Presiding Arbitrator passed his award duly signed, and Co-Arbitrator-2, vide a separate award, had concurred with the award of the Presiding Arbitrator, and passed his separate signed award. Co-Arbitrator-1 passed a separate dissenting minority award. All three awards were compiled by the Presiding Arbitrator in a booklet which contained the signatures of the Arbitrators on their respective awards, and sent to the Registrar of the Indian Council of Arbitration.

Upholding the legality of the majority award, which was contested on the ground that the it was not signed by all the arbitrators, and that the reason for such omission was not provided, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed,

“The award would be operative and valid being an award by majority and the majority (Presiding Arbitrator and Co-Arbitrator-2) signing the award and the Co-Arbitrator-1 signing his dissent/opinion. Consequently, there would be no requirement to record the reasons for the omission, in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 31, as there is no such omission.”

Civil Suit For Damages Maintainable Despite Concurrent Criminal Proceedings U/S 357 CrPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Bhavanam China Venkata Reddy v. Dantla Subba Reddy and Others

Case Number: FIRST APPEAL NO: 1025/2016

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 155

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that, by virtue of Section 357 of CrPC, civil suits filed for damages are maintainable even when criminal proceedings have already been initiated in respect of the same incident involving the same parties.

For reference, Section 357(3) of CrPC, permits compensation to be granted to any person suffering loss or injury due to the action of the accused when no fine is imposed, and Section 357(5) provides that any subsequent civil suit must consider the compensation already awarded under the Section to avoid double benefit.

Noting that these provisions collectively empower the Court to determine compensation which victims are entitled to against the accused in civil proceedings, a division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam stated,

“…we deem it appropriate to hold that, both the civil and criminal proceedings arising out of same matter is aptly maintainable. The real purport of Section 357(5) CrPC is that in the event of awarding damages by the civil Court, it must take into account of compensation granted by the criminal Court by virtue of above provision. Similarly, if the civil proceedings are disposed of prior to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings relating to the same matter, then it is the duty of the criminal court to take into account the decree passed by the civil court while exercising its powers vested under Section 357 Cr.P.C."