Telangana HC: No Role, No Case for Nominal Director

Hyderabad: Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a woman director of a solar power company under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). He held that mere designation as a director without specific involvement in the transaction was not sufficient to attract criminal liability. The judge allowed the criminal petition filed by Poonam Kumari, who challenged her prosecution by contending that she was a nominal director and not involved in the company’s day-to-day affairs or the transaction in question. The cheque in dispute was issued as a performance guarantee under a contract executed between the complainant and the accused company for establishing and maintaining 10 rooftop solar photovoltaic plants in Uttarakhand. The complainant alleged that the cheque was dishonoured for “insufficient funds” following non-fulfilment of contractual obligations. The judge noted that the agreement and the disputed cheque were both executed by another accused, who was in charge of the company’s operations. The petitioner neither signed the cheque nor was shown to play any role in the issuance of the same or the underlying contract. Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, the judge observed that specific allegations of direct involvement were essential to invoke vicarious liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act.

Hospital closure needs fair hearing: HC

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition filed by Seven Hills Multi Specialty Hospital, Banswada, challenging the cancellation of its registration following allegations of medical negligence. The petitioner contended that there were several inpatients and their medical management would be in jeopardy. The matter arose from a show-cause notice issued in August 2025 by the Kamareddy district medical and health officer (DMHO) after receiving a complaint alleging that a patient died due to negligence by the duty doctor at the petitioner’s hospital. Counsel for the hospital contended that the death occurred in Nizamabad, not at the petitioner’s facility, and termed the action of the authorities as illegal, arbitrary and procedurally flawed. It was argued that after the hospital submitted its explanation in response to the notice, no inquiry or hearing was conducted before the suspension order, amounting to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The cancellation is also challenged on the grounds that it was taken in undue haste and without proper application of mind.

Receptionist gets bail in prostitution case

The Telangana High Court granted regular bail to a receptionist accused of running a prostitution racket under the guise of a spa in Secunderabad. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Macha Manoj, who was arrayed as the accused in a crime registered at the Trimulgherry police station. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was allegedly managing illegal activities at a spa where the police reportedly found five women and a male customer during a raid on July 6. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, with no prior criminal history and was in judicial custody since arrest. It was contended that the ingredients of Section 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act were not attracted, and the arrest was made out in contravention of procedural safeguards. The judge observed that the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents, 14 witnesses had already been examined and the investigation was substantially completed. Accordingly, the judge enlarged the petitioner on conditional bail.

Vet. facility at Banjara Hills under judicial scanner

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the inaction of state authorities against an alleged unauthorised veterinary clinic being operated in Banjara Hills. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Agarwal Nitin Kumar and three others. The petitioners complained that their repeated representations to the departments concerned regarding the illegal functioning of a veterinary (pet) clinic in Banjara Hills had not elicited any action. According to the petitioners, one S. Sunitha Devi was operating the clinic without sanction or permission from the statutory authorities, including the animal husbandry department and the GHMC. They alleged that the clinic was being run in violation of municipal and veterinary health regulations, causing disturbance and posing potential risks to public health and hygiene in a residential locality.