Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court sitting in the vacation court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by an accused under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) seeking extension of interim medical bail, observing that physiotherapy treatment could continue while in judicial custody. The vacation panel comprising Justice T. Madhavi Devi and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Gade Innaiah alias Gade Inna Reddy, a participant in the Telangana statehood movement, seeking continuation of interim bail earlier granted by a coordinate bench on medical grounds.
Counsel for the appellant sought extension of interim bail by six weeks, contending that the appellant was scheduled for reassessment on June 25 and required further surgeries. It was submitted that physiotherapy could not be effectively undertaken in jail conditions and that continued medical supervision outside prison was necessary. Opposing the plea, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) contended that the medical advice only prescribed three days of rest following surgery and three weeks of physiotherapy, which would conclude on May 19. The agency pointed out that the appellant was facing prosecution in a serious case under the UAPA involving alleged Maoist links and that examination of 96 witnesses was completed during trial proceedings. The panel observed that the appellant was at liberty to approach the court separately in the event any future surgeries became necessary. The court noted that physiotherapy could continue in jail and declined to extend the interim medical bail. Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed.
HC: No jurisdiction in commercial row
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court dismissed an execution petition for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards worth about Rs.2,840 crore, holding that the Telangana High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The petition was filed by OWH SE i.L. against United Company Rusal and two related foreign entities — AL Plus Holding LLC and Gershvin. The petitioner sought enforcement of awards passed by the London Court of International Arbitration and attachment of 26 per cent shares held by AL Plus Holding LLC in Pioneer Aluminium Industries Limited. The petitioner contended that Rusal, AL Plus Holding LLC and Gershvin were operating as one economic entity. It was alleged that Rusal diverted assets through the two entities to defeat enforcement of the awards.
The respondents opposed the case on the ground that the two entities were not parties to the arbitration or the awards. They contended that the shares in Pioneer Aluminium Industries Limited belonged to AL Plus Holding LLC, a Qatar entity, and not to Rusal. The judge observed that third parties could be added in foreign award enforcement proceedings if assets were diverted to defeat an award. The judge first held that the execution petition was maintainable against all three companies. However, the judge observed that territorial jurisdiction still depended on where the assets were located. The judge noted that Pioneer Aluminium Industries Limited was registered in Andhra Pradesh and AL Plus Holding LLC was registered in Qatar. The judge held that the Telangana High Court would not get jurisdiction merely because the share register or books of account were maintained in Hyderabad while the companies were registered outside the jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the execution petition. On request of the petitioner, operation of the order was kept in abeyance till June 2 to enable an appeal.
Notice to SCERT on student’s plea
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi ordered notice to the State Council of Educational Research and Training in a writ plea filed by a DEd first-year student, questioning the denial of a hall ticket for the June 2026 examinations on the ground of alleged shortage of attendance. Petitioner Saba Anjum alleged that denial of her hall ticket due to shortage of attendance, despite serious medical issues, was illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for petitioner contended that her inability to meet attendance requirements was due to severe medical conditions, including a leg fracture and a hysterectomy, and that the refusal to permit her to appear for the examinations was arbitrary. It was contended that petitioner attended classes for a brief period before being forced to discontinue due to health complications.
Counsel for respondent authorities opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner failed to attend classes and did not satisfy the mandatory 80 per cent attendance requirement, following which her admission was cancelled in accordance with institutional rules. The judge directed the authorities to obtain instructions, particularly, on the attendance of the petitioner and the decision to cancel her admission.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
