Gopina Narayana vs Gopina Nagulu Advocate - PENUBALLI RAMESH BABU — CRP/984/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HBHC010202242026

Filing Number

CRP/14595/2026

Filing Date

31-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRP/984/2026

Registration Date

01-Apr-2026

Judge

J Sreenivas Rao

Coram

J Sreenivas Rao

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRP ( 9 )

Sub-Category

ARTICLE 227 ( 7 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL Section

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 13-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Gopina Narayana

    Adv. KONDAPARTHI SRINIVASA

  2. 2.Gopina Baburao

  3. 3.Gopina Ramakrishna

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Gopina Nagulu Advocate - PENUBALLI RAMESH BABU

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    J Sreenivas RaoView PDF

    Summary The Telangana High Court set aside an interim injunction order granted by the Agent to Government on January 31, 2026, finding that the court failed to assign adequate reasons for its decision as required by law. The court directed the Agent to Government to redecide the interim injunction application afresh within one month while maintaining status quo regarding possession of the disputed agricultural property, citing the principle that reasons are the "heartbeat of every conclusion" in judicial decisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Admission

    J Sreenivas Rao

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    J Sreenivas RaoView PDF

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    For Admission

    J Sreenivas Rao

  6. 02-Apr-2026

    J Sreenivas RaoView PDF

  7. 02-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 31-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRP/984/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Telangana High Court set aside an interim injunction order granted by the Agent to Government on January 31, 2026, finding that the court failed to assign adequate reasons for its decision as required by law. The court directed the Agent to Government to redecide the interim injunction application afresh within one month while maintaining status quo regarding possession of the disputed agricultural property, citing the principle that reasons are the "heartbeat of every conclusion" in judicial decisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case