Telangana HC comes to rescue of Mahbub College students

Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of Telangana High Court directed Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) and the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to provide edit access and restore original credentials to Mahbub College (Multi-Purpose Higher Secondary School), which operates under Swami Vivekananda Institute of Technology (SVIT). The decision comes amid an ongoing legal dispute between Mahbub College and Vivekananda Educational Society (VNES) over the institution’s management. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by Mahbub College alleging that VNES had unlawfully taken control of SVIT’s credentials and email access, preventing them from complying with JNTU and AICTE requirements.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that SVIT, with 1,800 students enrolled, had been unable to upload necessary documents for the academic year 2025-26 due to an internal conflict between Mahbub College and VNES. The dispute traces back to a licence agreement signed between the petitioner and VNES in 2015, which the petitioner claims was terminated in October 2024. VNES contested the termination, leading to multiple legal battles, including arbitration proceedings and pending civil suits. Due to the ongoing conflict, JNTU and AICTE had refrained from taking action, citing the matter as sub judice. The judge emphasised that while legal disputes between the parties continue, the education and future of 1,800 students should not be jeopardised. The judge directed JNTU to grant edit access to Mahbub College and instructed AICTE to restore the institution’s original registered email ID and provide new credentials. The judge clarified that the order was issued solely in the interest of students and should not be used by either party in any other legal proceedings.

HC to decide on interest rate vs default

A two-judge panel of Telangana High Court is examining whether difference in the interest payable on a loan is sufficient to dub to classify a creditor as a wilful defaulter. The panel faulted the AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited in issuing an impugned letter purporting to declare an individual as wilful defaulter with regard to a mortgage loan. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Madhusudhan Rao Bobbili Ramaiah was dealing with a writ plea filed by Vemula Ravi Kumar, who sought limited interim protection against a notice issued by the respondent bank calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner's name should not be included in the list of wilful defaulters as per the RBI guidelines.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned notice flew in the face of an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) setting aside an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which was in favour of the petitioner. The DRT directed the bank to levy interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the loan availed by the petitioner and conduct all further transactions in accordance with this rate of interest. The bank challenged the DRT order before the DRAT which it set aside. Senior counsel argued that once the petitioner had shown his willingness to settle the outstanding amount albeit at a lower rate of interest, the bank could not have issued the impugned notice threatening action of declaring the petitioner as a wilful defaulter. The panel passed an interim order staying the impugned notice in which bank was ‘concluding’ that the actions of the petitioner amounted to wilful default. The panel directed the registry to list the matter along with the connected writ petition. The matter was posted for further adjudication.

Notice to bank on retirement benefits

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of Telangana High Court ordered notice to the chief general manager and deputy general manager of Canara Bank in a contempt case pertaining to the release of gratuity and pension to a 79-year-old retired clerk. The judge was hearing a contempt case filed by B.J. Jaganadha Raju, who contended that the respondent authorities deliberately violated the order passed by the judge earlier in a writ plea.

Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ plea challenging the action of the bank in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity and pension. The judge had held that the petitioner was entitled for all consequential benefits like gratuity, pension and directed the respondents to pay the gratuity to the petitioner for the entire service along with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of his appointment till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. With regard to the pension, the judge held that the petitioner shall be eligible for pension in accordance with his service conditions at the time of entering into the service. The petitioner in the writ plea contended that despite directions passed by the judge, the respondent authorities flouted the orders and were guilty of contempt. The matter is posted for further adjudication.