Telangana High Court Upholds ₹25.92 crore Award In HCA-Visaka Dispute

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao dismissed a commercial appeal filed by the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), thereby upholding an arbitral award of `25.92 crore in favour of M/s Visaka Industries Limited. The award, which includes interest and costs, stemmed from a long-standing contractual dispute concerning in-stadia advertisement and naming rights for the cricket stadium at Uppal. The panel dealt with a commercial appeal field by Hyderabad Cricket Association. The appeal arose from an agreement dated October 16, 2004, between HCA and Visaka Industries, under which Visaka was granted advertisement and branding rights in exchange for an investment of Rs 4.32 crore. The agreement allowed Visaka to name the stadium and enjoy exclusive promotional rights. However, HCA failed to honour these terms during the Indian Premier League (IPL) matches, citing directions from the BCCI, and eventually terminated the agreement in 2011. Visaka responded by invoking arbitration, which culminated in an award passed on March 15, 2016, in its favour. HCA challenged the award, alleging undue influence by former HCA officials linked to Visaka, conflict of interest by an arbitrator, and excessive damages in violation of contract law. On the issue of damages, the panel upheld the arbitral tribunal’s reliance on Clause 6(v) of the agreement, which specified liquidated damages equal to six times Visaka’s investment in the event of breach. The panel observed that the tribunal rightly concluded that quantifying Visaka’s losses was impractical given the nature of in-stadia advertising during televised matches, and that the pre-agreed damages were enforceable under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. The panel further noted that HCA tried to introduce new grounds of challenge at a very late stage in February 2025, years after the award and nearly six months after filing its appeal. Dismissing the interlocutory application seeking to raise additional grounds, the panel found HCA’s conduct lacking in bona fides and observed that it adopted a strategy of delay. Speaking for the panel, Justice Moushumi stated, “Whatever game it may have played, it was certainly not cricket in the fairest sense of the term,” reflecting the panel’s disapproval of HCA’s litigation tactics.

Plea on women-only nursing lecturer rule

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 4 of GO dated April 4, 1997, issued by the Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, which reserves the post of Lecturer (Nursing) exclusively for women. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was hearing a writ plea filed by Korra Vinod and 10 other male Nursing Officers and teaching faculty in government hospitals and colleges, who contend that the impugned rule is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the Constitution. The petitioners are seeking a direction to amend Rule 4 by substituting the phrase “only women” with “both men and women,” and to prepare a final integrated seniority list in Multi Zone-I by including eligible male candidates for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Nursing). It was contended that promotions should not proceed on the basis of a gender-exclusive rule that excludes qualified male candidates, especially when several of them possess MSc qualifications and are otherwise eligible. The petitioners are also seeking to set aside the consequential proceedings denying their promotional opportunity. The panel extended its earlier interim order restraining the respondents from proceeding with any further promotions to the post of Lecturer (Nursing). The panel also directed respondents to file their response.

Writ on shifting students from premier institution questioned

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court granted interim relief in a writ plea challenging a circular shifting the candidates from TS Social Welfare Premier Center of Excellence [CoE] to TS Social Welfare Residential District CoE, who secured less than 80 per cent marks in Ist Year Intermediate Public Examination [IPE]. The judge was dealing with the writ petition filed by Kalla Shasidhar Reddy and nine others. It was the case of the petitioners that the decision to shift the candidates from premier CoE to district CoE was arbitrary and without legal sanctity. It was contended that there was no prior condition or intimation given to candidates that failure of them to secure more than 80 per cent marks in IPE would lead to transferring them to district CoE. It was argued that the allegation of the authorities that these students was observed to be disturbing their peers, who are committed to their studies, thereby negatively impacting the learning atmosphere and that due to their lack of commitment and poor performance, these students seem to be not well suited to participate in rigorous IIT and NEET coaching programme, which are integral to the premier curriculum was unsubstantiated and untrue. Counsel for the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society submitted that the Premier Centre of Excellence (CoE) was always envisioned exclusively for meritorious candidates, and therefore, the opportunity to secure admission therein ought to be reserved for such deserving students. The judge as an interim order directed the respondent authorities to file their counter and not to shift the candidates from the premier CoE until further orders.

HC junks police constable’s plea against punishment

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a police constable who challenged the disciplinary punishment imposed on him. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by D. Venkat Swamy, a constable accused in 2009 of misconduct while serving at Veepanagandla Police Station. Allegations included colluding with tractor owners to release seized vehicles without permission from the competent authority and remaining absent from duty for 21 days without authorisation. Based on these charges, both departmental proceedings and a criminal case under various sections of IPC were initiated. Though the criminal court acquitted him in 2010, the departmental inquiry continued. He was dismissed from service. He approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT). In 2014, the tribunal directed his reinstatement and recommended a lesser penalty. Following the tribunal’s directions, the authorities reinstated the constable and imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in timescale of pay by five stages for five years. Upon further appeal, the penalty was reduced to two stages for two years. The Inspector General of Police rejected the final revision petition on March 9, 2016. The petitioner contended that the decision was arbitrary. Rejecting his plea, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka held that the authorities had acted in accordance with the Service Tribunal’s order and noted that the punishment had already been mitigated on humanitarian grounds.The judge clarified that departmental and criminal proceedings function independently and observed that the punishment imposed did not warrant further interference.