LawforAll

▼
Wednesday, November 5, 2025

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) — Ss. 83, 84(2), 91(i) (as amended by Act 36 of 2023 w.e.f. 26-06-2023) — A.P. Endowments Tribunal Rules, 2010, r. 26(b)(v) — Maintainability — Remedy against dismissal of S.83 O.A. — Held: Against an order dismissing an application under S.83 (encroachment proceedings) no appeal lies under S.84(2) at the instance of the institution. S.84(2) appeal is confined to a person aggrieved who disputes the title of the religious/charitable institution and faces eviction; it is not available to the institution. The proper remedy for an unsuccessful institution is a revision under S.91(i) read with Rule 26(b)(v) (revision to the High Court within the prescribed period). Consequently, CMAs filed by institutions under S.84(2) are not maintainable. Liberty reserved to file revisions; S.14 Limitation Act benefit available for the period bona fide spent in these CMAs. Practice & Procedure — Registry Directions — Registry directed that future challenges by institutions against dismissal orders under S.83(4)/(5) shall be entertained only as revisions under S.91(i) r/w Rule 26, not as appeals under S.84(2).

›
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-F...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 40 Rule 1 — Appointment of Receiver — Discretionary jurisdiction — Panch Sadachar principles — Delay and absence of urgency — Improper exercise of discretion — Receiver appointment set aside. Where a receiver was appointed in a suit between a Trust and a Society (permissive occupant) despite absence of urgency, imminent danger, or proof of misuse, and where similar issues were already adjudicated in earlier litigation, Held, the trial court failed to apply the “panch sadachar” principles laid down in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty, AIR 1955 Mad 430. Appointment of receiver after three years of suit filing without emergent circumstances amounts to arbitrary exercise of discretion. Held further: Appointment of receiver is a drastic remedy and must be exercised sparingly when the plaintiff shows (i) adverse and conflicting claims, (ii) imminent danger or loss, and (iii) excellent prima facie chance of success. Mere allegations of misuse or defunct status of defendant society are insufficient.

›
APHC0103832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Appeal against arbitral award under National Highways Act, 1956 — Scope of interference — Patent illegality — Public policy. Where the Arbitrator enhanced market value of acquired land from ₹98.84 per sq.m. to ₹148.26 per sq.m., and the Principal District Judge, Chittoor dismissed the challenge under Section 34, Held, appellate court’s interference under Section 37 is limited. No patent illegality or perversity found — Appeal dismissed. National Highways Act, 1956 — Section 3G(7) — Determination of compensation — Guidelines — Application. The Arbitrator may consider surrounding factors such as comparative valuation of horticultural components (mango and coconut trees) when no proximate sales in same village are available. Reference to higher fruit-tree valuations in neighbouring States not illegal if used only for comparative guidance.

›
APHC010362252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order IX Rule 13 — Ex parte decree — Setting aside — Sufficient cause — Absence due to alleged stay outside State — Burden of proof — Lack of diligence. Where the defendant, though duly served and represented through counsel, failed to file written statement and was set ex parte in 2022, but took no steps until after the decree was passed in 2024, his plea that he was away in another State for livelihood was held insufficient to constitute “sufficient cause” under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Held: The appellant’s negligence and prolonged inaction disentitle him to equitable relief. “Sufficient cause” must be shown for the date on which the defendant was set ex parte, not for later circumstances. Application rightly dismissed by trial court — appeal dismissed.

›
CITATION Reddi Sriramulu v. Valle Dalamuma & Ors., C.M.A. No. 432 of 2025, decided on 09-09-2025 (A.P. H.C.) —  Per  Challa Gunaranjan, ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Order 43 Rule 1, r/w Section 151 — Ad-interim injunction — Grant of ex parte injunction by Lower Appellate Court — Without notice — Improper exercise of discretion — Matter remitted for reconsideration — Directions for status quo. Where the Lower Appellate Court, pending appeal against a decree of dismissal of suit for injunction, granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from interfering with possession of plaintiffs, without notice and without limiting the duration of such order, the High Court held that such order was unsustainable.

›
APHC010381952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, T...