Societies Cannot Levy Fee Unless Cleared by General Body: Telangana HC

Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court held that housing societies cannot collect maintenance charges on a per square foot basis unless the general body itself approved such a method in accordance with the bylaws. The judge observed that the board of directors of Necklace Pride Apartments Welfare Society was not competent to fix maintenance rates and that only the general body could determine how such charges should be levied. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Necklace Pride Apartments Flat Owners Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Limited, challenging the Co-operative Housing Tribunal’s order that had stayed the society’sgeneral body resolution permitting per-square-foot billing passed at the special general body meeting. The judge found fault with the Tribunal for doing so without giving the society an opportunity to be heard, terming it a violation of the principles of natural justice. “The Tribunal erred in assuming that the general body meeting was convened to dilute its orders,” the judge said, setting aside the Tribunal’s interim stay order. The judge clarified that while societies cannot take decisions on matters that are sub-judice, they are not barred from discussing such issues. Directing the Tribunal to reconsider the dispute on merits, the judge kept open the question of the validity of the general body meeting itself.

Govt response sought on VRA eligibility changes

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, ordered notice to the proposed respondents in a writ plea challenging the validity of recent amendments to the Telangana Village Revenue Assistants (VRA) Service Rules, 2023. The panel was hearing a writ plea filed by M. Ramakrishna Reddy. The petitioner contended that the amendment, which made VRAs eligible for appointment by transfer to the posts of office subordinate, record assistant and junior assistant under the last grade, general subordinate and ministerial services, was contrary to the Telangana Ministerial Service Rules and the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules. It was argued that the government’s action adversely affected the rights and promotional prospects of regularly appointed junior assistants and other ministerial staff by deeming absorbed VRAs as having been appointed by transfer.

HC: Live-in without marriage promise no crime

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court held that long-term consensual relationships without insistence on marriage cannot be treated as offences based on false promises of marriage. The judge allowed a criminal petition filed by Halaveth Sukumar seeking to quash proceedings pending before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The case was registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging cheating on the pretext of marriage. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant, a beautician residing at Manikonda, had been living separately from her husband without obtaining a divorce. She entered into a live-in relationship with the petitioner after he allegedly promised to marry her. When the petitioner later refused to marry her, citing her existing marriage, she lodged a complaint at the Banjara Hills police station. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the relationship was consensual and that there was no intention to deceive. He argued that upon discovering the complainant’s marital status, the petitioner distanced himself and the allegations did not constitute cheating under the law. After examining the record, Justice Sridevi noted that the complainant was married with two children and had not obtained a divorce. Observing that the relationship between the parties appeared consensual, the judge held that the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Freezing current account without reason unlawful: HC

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed HDFC Bank to permit the operation of a pickle-making entrepreneur’s account while retaining a lien over the disputed amount. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Amma Pickle, a small-scale enterprise engaged in pickle production, sheep farming and meat supply, registered under the MSME and labour departments of Telangana. The petitioner’s current account was frozen by the bank following an alleged erroneous NEFT credit of `49,800 from HDFC Bank. It was contended that despite the petitioner’s immediate written consent for reversal of the disputed amount and repeated requests, the bank failed to defreeze her account, citing lack of business activity at her address. Counsel for the petitioner argued that freezing a customer’s account without prior notice or inquiry violated Reserve Bank of India guidelines and the fundamental right to carry on trade under the Constitution. Observing that the petitioner acted in good faith and that the bank’s prolonged inaction was unjustified, the judge held that freezing the account without a valid reason was “unsustainable in law” and directed HDFC Bank to defreeze the account forthwith while retaining a lien over the disputed sum.