Latest news with #MoushumiBhattacharya
Time of India
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC sends notices to 3 lawyers for vilifying Telangana high court judge
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday issued contempt of court notices to three lawyers for making scurrilous and scandalous remarks against Telangana HC's Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya in a petition in SC seeking transfer of the case from her court to another judge after she quashed SC/ST Act charges against CM Revanth Reddy. A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran took exception to the pleadings in the transfer petition and said, "At a time when we are protecting lawyers from getting summons, we cannot allow our judges to be put in the dock. It is clear that the lawyers have made scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting judge of Telangana HC." The bench said, "Not only the litigants would face contempt of court proceedings for making such allegations, but the lawyers who prepare petitions containing such allegations would also be liable for contempt of court." The bench issued notice to the lawyer-petitioner, the advocate who drafted the petition and the advocate-on-record under whose signature the petition was filed. "Show cause why contempt of court proceedings be not initiated against you (the three advocates). The petitioner-advocate and the other two advocates would remain present in court to face the contempt proceedings on Aug 11," the bench ordered. However, the bench said if genuine apologies tendered, these would be considered on the next date of hearing.
Time of India
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Maoist Sri Vidya in judicial custody: State informs HC
Hyderabad: The state govt on Monday informed Telangana high court that they produced Maoist Sri Vidya before the trial court and sent her in judicial remand on July 25 as per the court orders. Accordingly, a division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Madhusudhan Rao, hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Sri Vidya's father Sudhakar Sharma disposed of the matter. The bench took up the matter on a petition alleging that police illegally detained Sri Vidya and urged the court that she be produced before the court immediately, following which the high court issued notices to police. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, special govt pleader Swaroop Oorilla informed the court that Sri Vidya was presented in the Miyapur court following an FIR against her and that she was subsequently shifted to judicial remand. "Despite the govt's offer for Maoists to surrender and join the mainstream, Sri Vidya did not utilise the opportunity," Oorilla informed the bench.
Indian Express
28-07-2025
- Indian Express
Telangana HC suspends man's sentence over child's rape-murder; points out lapses in identification, prolonged incarceration
Emphasising significant concerns regarding the identification process conducted and the prolonged period of incarceration, the Telangana High Court recently suspended the sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering a child in 2019, and granted him bail pending the appeal. The order, delivered on July 24 by a bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B R Madhusudhan Rao, stated, '…the inordinate and unexplained delay of 150 days in conducting the Test Identification Parade, coupled with the circumstances in which the material witnesses…saw a person running away from the scene of offence without seeing his face, read with the conclusion of the Trial Court that it was not possible to identify the petitioner/accused from the video footage, nullifies the value of the Test Identification Parade.' The case stemmed from a complaint lodged on May 9, 2019, by the father of a 7-year-old boy, who was found dead with head injuries after being sent to a shop near their home the day before. The investigation led to the apprehension of the appellant on May 13 that year, based on CCTV footage and suspicion raised by a witness. The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured the deceased, committed unnatural sexual acts, and then fatally hit the child's head on the ground. The appellant was convicted on July 20, 2021, for offences under sections 363 (kidnapping), 377 (unnatural offences), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was awarded multiple sentences for the offences, including rigorous imprisonment of five years, life imprisonment, and two sentences of 10 years each, all of which were directed to run concurrently. The division bench, however, noted several critical issues with the prosecution's case, one of them being that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged unnatural sex, kidnapping, or murder. The court also highlighted the 'inordinate and unexplained delay' of 150 days in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) after the accused's arrest. The court felt the identification of the appellant by the witnesses was unreliable due to the long delay, noting that the witnesses had only seen a person running away from the scene in the dark and provided a vague description. 'It is settled law that the Test Identification Parade should be held without any unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused, which is necessary for eliminating the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before the Test Identification Parade,' the order read. The court also found that the Investigating Officer was unable to determine the blood group of the deceased or the accused, nor confirm if the bloodstains on seized items belonged to the accused. The court referred to the precedent set in Batchu Ranga Rao and others v State of Andhra Pradesh, which provides guidelines for releasing accused persons who have been in custody for more than five years. As the appellant had been in jail for over six years as of the order date, the court found it to be sufficient grounds for granting bail. The bail was granted subject to several conditions, including furnishing of a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties. Rahul V Pisharody is an Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting from Telangana on various issues since 2019. Besides a focused approach to big news developments, Rahul has a keen interest in stories about Hyderabad and its inhabitants and looks out for interesting features on the city's heritage, environment, history culture etc. His articles are straightforward and simple reads in sync with the context. Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of district correspondents, centres and internet desk for over three years. A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. Long motorcycle rides and travel photography are among his other interests. ... Read More
Indian Express
26-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
‘Law of limitation binds everybody, including govt': Telangana High Court dismisses TSIDC's appeal due to 514-day delay
The Telangana High Court Friday dismissed an appeal filed by the Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation (TSIDC) against an order of a commercial court, citing an 'unexplained' and 'unreasonable' delay of 514 days in filing the plea. The bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao was hearing an appeal filed by TSIDC challenging a commercial court order dated February 16, 2023, which dismissed its appeal seeking a decree of over Rs 1.3 crore with an annual interest at 17.5 per cent against the respondents. The appeal was filed on December 26, 2024, accompanied by an application for condonation of the significant delay of 514 days. The high court's rejection of TSIDC's appeal means that the original claim of Rs 1,30,31,000, with interest, which was already dismissed by the commercial court, remains dismissed. During the proceedings, the TSIDC filed two affidavits citing the delay and attributed it to several factors such as long time taken to understand the impugned order, officials being occupied with the state and Union election duties leading to a halt in decision-making on legal matters, the file going untraceable, and a change in leadership with three vice chairpersons and managing cirectors taking charge in quick succession. However, the bench found that 'the dates mentioned in the two affidavits contain several unexplained time-gaps..' Specifically, it found a four-month gap between the day the certified copy of the order was ready and the day when the Telangana Assembly elections were announced. Similarly, it found another six-month gap between the polling dates of the Telangana elections and the general elections, for which no explanation was provided. The court also observed that the TSIDC only realised the matter was pending in November 2024 when respondent No. 1 sought the return of original title deeds. This prompted the search for the missing file that was eventually traced in the second week of December 2024. The appeal was filed on December 26, 2024. While TSIDC relied on section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963, which allows filing of an appeal or any application beyond the prescribed period of time subject to the court being satisfied of the sufficiency of cause shown by the appellant or applicant for the delay, the bench noted that 'the burden of proving the sufficiency of cause lies with the appellant or applicant.' Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, the high court reiterated that delay beyond the prescribed period, particularly in matters under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, should be condoned by way of exception, not as a rule. 'There is little doubt that the objective of a special statute like The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is to ensure speedy resolution of high-value commercial disputes, without any exceptions. The focus is on quick resolution which includes government entities when they are parties to commercial disputes,' the order read. The judgment firmly stated that the 'law of limitation binds everybody, including the government'. Noting that the exercise of discretion under section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963, empowers the court to entertain an appeal or application beyond the prescribed period of limitation subject to the court being satisfied of the sufficiency of cause shown by the applicant/appellant, the court observed, 'Sufficient cause must reflect a sense of purpose and a willingness to restore diligence. The reasons shown cannot be slipshod or nonchalant so as to demand condonation as a matter of entitlement. It must be borne in mind that delay may have created equity in favour of another in the interregnum.' The bench also noted that one of the grounds for the original impugned order against TSIDC was that its claim was already barred by limitation. 'Thus, it is all the more difficult to accept that the appellant would slip into a slumber for 514 days after having suffered an order, inter alia, on the ground of delay,' the court noted. Finding no satisfactory reason to condone the 514-day delay, the high court dismissed TSIDC's application for condonation of delay, consequently rejecting the commercial court appeal. Rahul V Pisharody is an Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting from Telangana on various issues since 2019. Besides a focused approach to big news developments, Rahul has a keen interest in stories about Hyderabad and its inhabitants and looks out for interesting features on the city's heritage, environment, history culture etc. His articles are straightforward and simple reads in sync with the context. Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of district correspondents, centres and internet desk for over three years. A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. Long motorcycle rides and travel photography are among his other interests. ... Read More
Time of India
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC refuses to overturn 34-yr-old property dispute order
1 2 Hyderabad: In a firm stance against delay and unsubstantiated claims, the Telangana high court has dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a retired govt teacher seeking to overturn a 34-year-old preliminary order in a long-pending family property dispute. The original partition suit was filed in 1987 by two minor children through their maternal grandfather, seeking division of ancestral property. Their father—now 75 years—failed to appear before the court despite being served summons multiple times. Consequently, an ex parte preliminary decree was passed on Feb 7, 1989. Claiming decades later that he had never received the summons, the father approached the high court in 2023. However, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, while recently disposing of the petition, observed that there was no material on record to support his claim. "This court does not find any infirmity in the trial court order," the judge said. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The petitioner's key contention was that the ex parte decree should be set aside on grounds of fraud. However, the trial court found his allegations vague and lacking particulars. The high court upheld this view, stating that "bald allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, without supporting material, carry no weight." The judge also ruled that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, did not apply in this case, as the children had been appropriately represented by their maternal grandfather during the suit. Justice Bhattacharya further noted that the children, now aged 43 and 39, never challenged the preliminary decree even after attaining majority, reinforcing the validity of the original court order.
