Issuance of Proximity Cards to Telangana HC Challenged

Haydarabad: Two judges panels from the TaLangana Supreme Court of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Narsing Rao ordered notification to the TELANGANA Supreme Court Lawyers Association [THCAA] The Supreme Court is in a challenging action to allow the provision of proximity cards through private and non-evolving organization. The panel is dealing with a written petition area of ​​R Vivekan. It is an example of the petition that Thcaa has collected RS. It has been suggested that the 400th Supreme Court Buildings are public property for exorbant and arbitrary proximity cards, only the relevant legal authority may allow them to enter or exit to the Supreme Court Buildings and anyone else. The petition owner immediately took measures to stop the provision of proximity cards through THCAA in search of a projection against the Tesister protocol. The petition holder also the identity card of the TaLangana Bar Council or any state bar council given to any advocate, a lawyer is thought to be the emergence of a lawyer in Ingress or Compocation, in the event of a collection of the record general in accordance with the 30th part of the Advocats Act dated 1961, if it comes together, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is possible, in case of a collection, if it is possible, if it is possible, if it is in the event of a collection, if it is possible, if it is in the event of a collection, if it is possible, if it comes together, in case of a collection, if it is in the event of a lawyer. If it was collected in the figure, it drew even more attention. In accordance with Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, it is subject to any rules/regulations made by the state through legislation or rules made by the Supreme Court. The panel directed the participants to present their meters and sent the issue to 22 September.

Relaxation for Chaicania Education Trust Evacuation Team

Justice G. Radha Rani allowed a civil revision petition opened by M/S. The Sri Chaicanian Education Foundation and Senior Civil Judge KODAD gave an order that directs the evacuation of the educational institution and directed the cancellation of a registered rent title deed, indicating the legal priority of registered documents and limitation laws. When there was a registered lease deed, the judge decided that he had invalidated an agreement that was not registered in accordance with the registration law plan. The CRP was opened against two landowners who wanted the evacuation of educational confidence and the cancellation of a registered rent title deed. The petition stem from a dispute between the landowners and trust in the Suriapet region KODAD. The plaintiffs rented the G+3 commercial building under an agreement, and then a registered lease bill was executed to obtain government permits. The plaintiffs claimed that the registered lease agreement carried out the monthly rent in a fraudulent manner by misleading the monthly rent instead of a stable amount of 1,81,828 RS, and thus avoiding stamp tax and misleading the government. After the termination, they asked for unauthorized use to cancel the lease, evacuation and 5 Lakh RS per month. Güven objected to the case by claiming that the registered rent deed was valid until 2029 and that the allegations of fraud or false declarations were banned by the three -year restriction period specified in accordance with Article 59 of the Law of Limitation. The judge, educated and completely aware of the plaintiffs later the registered rent deed, Factum’s defense could not reject. Since the evacuation notifications were based only on the unregistered lease agreement, the judge decided that the evacuation case was unsustainable. It is also assumed that the smart draft cannot invalidate the legal limitation and allowing such a case to continue means abuse of the judicial process.

HC appeals for purchase rejection

Justice K. Lakshman of the Supreme Court of TaLangana worked as a writing that challenged the authorities to refuse to allow the purchases restored in B. Tech Civil and EEE courses for the 2025-26 academic year. The judge is listening to a writer’s petition opened by the Kakatiya Education Association and KODAD Technology and Women’s Institute for women, each of which wants to be recognized in these courses. The petition holders will claim that the authorities’ action is arbitrary and that the institution has the right to be treated in a valid way. The lawyer of the petitions pointed out that all the necessary permissions were obtained and that the institution is valid for all courses, including the restored purchase and is entitled to be approved. The judge directed the participants to give their answers and published the issue for more hearing.

HC fir in hospital

Justice Juvadi Sridevi of the Supreme Court of TaLangana suppressed a criminal prosecution against ten defendants, including a doctor who ruled a well -known private hospital in Warangal on the grounds that the complaint was civilian. Fir has launched more than one provision of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on a long -standing family dispute allegedly in the midst of a family dispute. Judge worked with a criminal petition made by Toutirereddy Narsinga Reddy and nine other people, and the complainant tried to break the criminal case against a joint partner at Jaya Hospital, run by his younger brother and family. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly abused, refused to access the hospital records and made important documents and cash theft. It was also claimed that the complainant had been incorrectly restricted and threatened by the defendant who insulted an insulted disagreement on the property of ancestors. Fir contained various IPC sections such as false restrictions, tricks, cheating and property, theft and crime intimidation. However, the judge found that the dispute is mainly civilian in nature. A partnership deed was directed by Jaya Hospital and contained an arbitration to resolve internal disputes. The complainant also filed a lawsuit that wants to have the remaining division and separate family ownership. The judge did not make a special claim against the defendants to verify the crimes under the IPC departments quoted. The judge also observed that there is no proof of real restrictions, cheating or theft. Similarly, no detail supported obscene behavior or criminal intimidation claims. By referring to the Supreme Court, deciding on the judge, he reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be used to solve legal points. The judge decided that the Fir did not explain any cognitive crime and that the continuation of the case would mean that the legal process would be abused and would allow the penalty petition accordingly.