The Telangana High Court restricted several medical schools to require different fees and took classes under excuses. The panel of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Judge Renuka Yara heard a writ appeal filed by Advaita Shankar and others, challenging a judge to dismiss his writ request. Students believe that their admission is based on a fixed fee structure and that the sudden demand for additional payments midway through the course is arbitrary and financially burdensome. S. Ravi, a senior attorney who appeared for the petitioner, noted that the single judge had earlier approved an interim order that would allow students to pay part of the fees while considering the written petition. This protection was lifted after the writ petition was dismissed. Senior lawyer stressed
Rates at this stage will cause serious difficulties. The panel directed the respondents’ agencies to submit a response. To protect the appellant’s interests, the panel directed respondents to allow students to continue their studies without any obstacles and prohibited them from charging any additional fees until further hearings.
Notice of contempt for agricultural officials
Justice T. Madhavi Devi ordered the notification of the Chief Secretary, the Specialist in Agriculture and Cooperation, Cooperation and Registration Officer
In contempt cases, the cooperative society is related to the implementation of paid orders. The judge is dealing with a case of contempt brought by B. Aruna, the joint clerk of the cooperative and managing director of Telangana National Cooperative. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ plea, challenging her request for a denial of payment from her April 21, 1990 batch colleague. The judge found that the petitioner was granted qualifications at the same level as the batch handler and therefore had the right to seek compensation parity and consequence benefits. The petitioner claimed that despite the judge’s absolute instructions in the writ request, the defendant authorities have not complied with the order.
HC puts aside SBI’s e-auction notice
Justice T. Vinod Kumar accused SBI of the company’s electronic auction of property in violation of Supreme Court regulations and announced laws. In his judgment on far-reaching imports, the judge declared that the power of directors suspended during the liquidation period could still be maintained in the actions of secured creditors “if they have a negative impact on the liquidation process or interests of other creditors”. The judge allowed Shra Energy Private Limited to submit a company application, challenging the bank’s authority to initiate property sales in Patancheru. The petitioner pointed out that his proposal to pay Rs 300 crore under a settlement would be better than Rs 250 crore offered in the electronic auction. The bank argues that since it is not outside the liquidation process, it can be independently said that property under the Sarfaesi regulations (Securitization and reconstruction and enforcement of security interests of financial assets). The court ruled that as the official liquidator entered the company’s shoes, the secured creditor must give notice to the borrower (in this case the official liquidator). The judge also persuaded the bank to defend that non-issuing notice would not be fatal to the auction. The judge agreed with the official liquidator, and he said that under the Thesarfaesi Act, his rights were denied.
Student accused of kidnapping is released on bail
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao bailed a student accused of kidnapping and marrying a minor girl. The judge handled a criminal petition filed by Pawar Vinod. The prosecution claimed that the victim was a minor and disappeared in February, resulting in registration of the case. The petitioner believes that the victim is not a minor and relies on the certificate of good faith issued by MPPS-Sarjaraopet. The petitioner pointed out that he and the victim were married in February 2025. The prosecution cited the victim’s SSC certificate, which records different dates of birth. The judge observed that even under the SSC certificate, the victims had a history of over 16 years of age. The judge also noted the long-term relationship between the petitioner and the victim and the fact that the petitioner has been detained in judicial detention since February.
