Home   >   History of Thalasserry court

history of courts

1802 was a landmark year in the Judicial history of North Malabar in which year the first zilla court was established at Thalassery (formerly known as Tellicherry). To begin with, it was three bench Court of which, Two Judges were on circuit. H.Clephen was the First Judge of the Zilla Court, Thalassery. In 1816 a District Munsiff Court was established at Thalassery. In 1845 all Courts were abolished and in their place a Civil and Sessions Court and a Principal Sudir Amin’s Courts were established. In 1873 the Civil and Sessions Court was changed into District and Sessions Court. It is worth remembering that the Thalassery Bench and Bar celebrated the Bi-Centenary of the establishment of Zilla Court at Thalassery in 2002-2003 in a befitting manner.

Thalassery Courts has its Glorious past and that name and fame, by erudits Bar and eminent Judges due to their performance well. The contribution of Thalassery Courts to the higher Judiciary is worth mentioning viz; Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, Justice V.Khalid, Justice K.Bhaskaran, Justice K.Bhaskaran Nambiar, Justice P.A.Muhammed, late Justice P.V.Narayanan Nambiar and Justice A.K.Basheer. Minister of State for External Affairs E. Ahamed was also a former member of the Bar Association.The present Director General of Prosecution Mr.T.Asaf Ali is also a member of the glorious Bar.

picture1

Thalassery is the Judicial head quarter of Kannur Revenue District. 13 regular Courts are functioning here and camp Courts like Labour Court, Human Right Commission etc. are also conducting sittings at Thalassery Court Complex. There are 700 members on the role of the District Court Bar Association and has a well stocked and up-dated Library. As part of the Bi –Centenary celebration, a well equipped Library has also started functioning in the Court premises for the use of members and Judicial officers (Remembering the contributions of senior lawyer Mr. K K Venugopal to the library in memory of Barrister M K  Nambiar). The district court bar association library is known as ‘Reid Libraray’ named after Justice J W Reed.

Noted Malayalam writer Chandu Menon who wrote Malayalam's first novel 'Indulekha' was a Judge at Thalassery. William Logan, who served as district judge at Thalassery in 1873, is still remembered for his Malabar Manual.

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Tata Steel Ltd & Ors on 12 February, 2016
Dipak Misra, J. M/s. Tata Steel Limited, the 1st respondent herein, had established a manufacturing unit for production of HRP, rounds, structural and other iron and steel products in Dhanbad situated in erstwhile Bihar. The State of Bihar had on 22.12.1995 formulated an industrial policy for tax exemption and/or deferment to such industrial units which started production between 01.09.1995 and 31.08.2000. The said policy was issued in exercise of power conferred by Section 23A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (for short, “the 1981 Act”) and the purpose of framing the policy was industrial growth of the State. The policy stipulated that such industrial units should have the registration certificate indicating that the unit was eligible to have the benefits of the policy. The policy was issued with a view to create an atmosphere conducive for growth of industries and optimum utilisation of the natural resources available in the designated/stipulated area. As is evident, by the said policy, the Government intended to attract investors from various parts of the country to invest in the identified areas. The major incentive under the policy, apart from others, included eight years sales tax exemption on sale and purchase of material from the date of commencement of production as stipulated in the policy. Keeping in view the purpose incorporated in the policy, exemption notification under the 1981 Act was issued. The appellant expressed its willingness to install a cold rolling mill in Jamshedpur by investing Rs. 2000 crores. After a final decision was taken upon due deliberation, the 1st respondent sought a confirmation from the State of Bihar to assure the commitment to grant sales tax exemption as stated in the policy as an incentive. Number of meetings took place between the authorities of the State of Bihar and the 1st respondent and in pursuance of the discussion, certain amendments in the policy took place, as a consequence of which a communication was made to the 1st respondent for setting up a cold rolling mill with production capacity of 1.02 million tonnes requiring investment of Rs. 1874.04 crores on the project. Regard being had to the discussion and the communication, the 1st respondent invested nearly Rs. 2000 crores on its own and the commercial production commenced from 01.08.2000.
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj And Ors vs Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly ... on 12 February, 2016
Chelameswar, J. 1. This is a petition filed by six petitioners invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India. They are members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly representing different constituencies. By a resolution of the assembly dated 19.02.2015, nineteen members of the assembly, including the six petitioners, have been suspended from the House for the remainder of the period of the then current Session. The resolution suspended the nineteen members for allegedly obstructing the proceedings of the legislative assembly. Subsequently, a Privileges Committee was constituted to inquire into whether the conduct of the members during the incident dated 19.02.2015 amounted to a breach of privilege. The Privileges Committee held that the actions of the six petitioners were a breach of privilege, and recommended the action to be taken against the six petitioners. Such a recommendation was passed by a resolution of the assembly dated 31.03.2015. Through this resolution, the petitioners were suspended for a period of ten days of the next session of the House. Further, it was resolved that the petitioners should not be paid their salaries or given other benefits which are due to them as members of the Legislative Assembly for the period of suspension.
Pepsico India Holding P.Ltd vs Grocery Market & Shops Board & Ors on 12 February, 2016
R.F. Nariman, J. 1. These appeals involve an interpretation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as “the 1969 Act”) read with the Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1970 Scheme”). The brief facts necessary for a decision in Civil Appeal No.10000 Of 2010 (Supreme Petro-Chem Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others) are that under Section 5 of the said 1969 Act, if any question arises whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers, the matter shall be referred to the State Government and the decision of the State Government which shall be taken after consulting the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 14 shall be final. By an order dated 24.6.2008, the State Government after referring to submissions from the appellants as well as submissions from the Board, held:-
Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd on 11 February, 2016
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The question raised is whether for the drivers having licence to drive light motor vehicles there is a necessity of obtaining endorsement to drive the transport vehicle when the transport vehicle is of class of light motor vehicle. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. For consideration of aforesaid question, it is necessary to refer to various provisions and decisions. 3. Driving licence has been defined in section 2(10) of the Act of 1988. The provision is extracted hereinbelow : “2(10) “driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.” Gross vehicle weight has been defined in section 2(15) thus :
Tekan Alias Tekram vs State Of M.P (Now Chhattisgarh) on 11 February, 2016
M.Y. EQBAL, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th January, 2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 2554 of 1997 affirming the judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I., the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. This is a case where the prosecutrix, who is blind and an illiterate girl, was subjected to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix was residing with her father at Village Nandini Khundini. Her mother had left and married somewhere else and, thereafter, the prosecutrix was living with her three brothers Nand Kumar, Iswari and Baldau. Along with brother of prosecutrix Iswari, the accused Tikendra was also studying. Because of the friendship, the accused used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and was in conversation with her. It is the case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix used to remain alone in her house, the accused used to visit her and expressed her that he is in love with her. Further, the case of the prosecution is that about one year before the incident, the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix when she was alone. Thereafter, the accused had told her that he is in love with her and will marry her and wanted to commit sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix tried to avoid it since she was a blind girl, but the prosecutrix was told by the accused that he will marry her and will give her all support and, therefore, she submitted herself to the accused. Thereafter, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. It is the case of the prosecution that whenever the prosecutrix remained alone in the house, the accused used to come and commit sexual intercourse with her. By such course of action, when the prosecutrix became pregnant, the prosecutrix told the accused to marry her. At that point of time, the accused stopped visiting the house of the prosecutrix. Subsequent to it, the incident was disclosed to the father of the prosecutrix who called the meeting of the Panchayat in the Village. In the Panchayat, the accused was also called. It is the case of the prosecution that in the Panchayat, the accused admitted the fact that he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix but refused to marry her and left the Panchayat. It was the specific case of prosecution that though the prosecutrix was blind, she could recognize the accused person by his voice and by touch.
Basavantappa vs Irappa(D) By Lrs. & Ors on 11 February, 2016
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The only issue is with regard to payment of the amount which had been paid by the appellant to the respondents at the time of entering into an agreement to purchase the property in question. 3. In view of the fact that the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance had been dismissed on the ground that the respondents did not have title, the respondents must repay the amount received by them from the appellant. The amount shall be returned within two months from today with simple interest @9%. 4. Intimation of this order be served upon the respondents. 5. The appeal is allowed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Hamant Yashwant Dhage vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 10 February, 2016
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 2. Leave granted. 3. Though the matter has remained pending for long, fortunately the core issue involved for our consideration is a very simple one. 4. The appellant was respondent in two Criminal Appeals bearing Numbers 766 and 767 of 2010 arising out of a common judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated September 8, 2009 in CRL.W.P. No. 2482 of 2008. 5. This Court disposed of both the appeals vide order dated April 12, 2010. It did not approve the action of High Court in entertaining writ petitions for change of investigating officer. The relevant parts of that order read as follows :-
Bharamappa Gogi vs Praveen Murthy & Ors. Etc on 9 February, 2016
AMITAVA ROY, J. These appeals register a challenge to the judgment and order dated 4.12.2009 rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1126 of 2006 and 1167 of 2006 preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 2216 of 2010 and respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 2217 of 2010 respectively. 2. The appellant-complainant is aggrieved by the interference with the conviction of the respondents-accused recorded by the trial court. Whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 2216 of 2010 were convicted under Sections 390/392/457 read with Section 34 IPC, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 2217 of 2010, however, had been additionally convicted under Section 302 IPC. All the three accused were sentenced accordingly. Though the respondents-accused preferred appeals against their conviction, as above, the State refrained from doing so, more particularly against the acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
Richa Mishra vs State Of Chhatisgarh & Ors on 8 February, 2016
A.K. SIKRI, J. The issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the appointment for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'Dy.S.P.'). Though, the appellant herein had participated in the selection process and she not only qualified at each stage of the examination process, her name was still not included in the list of successful candidates for the said post. The reason given was that as per the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2000), upper age limit for appointment to the post of Dy.S.P. was 25 years and she had already crossed the said age limit, and therefore, she was rendered ineligible for the post in question.
Surjeet Singh Bhamra vs Bank Of India & Ors on 8 February, 2016
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 171 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2006 of the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3842 of 2002 by which the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant wherein the challenge was to the order dated 20.03.2001 passed by the Chief Manager, Bank of India (respondent No.3 herein) imposing the punishment of reduction of his basic pay by five stages on the appellant.
M/S. V.L.S. Finance Ltd vs S.P. Gupta And Anr on 5 February, 2016
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted. 2. The obtaining factual matrix encompasses a scenario which covers quite a span of time, and the chronology of events projects horrendous picture, as Mr. Dushyant A. Dave and Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel would submit with stirred vehemence and expressive concern on the formulation that exploitation of legal system, seemingly looking innocent, has, in fact, cultivated the path of deviation that has led to pathetic miscarriage of justice, for there has been real abuse of the process of law at every stage. Learned counsel for the appellants put the blame on the respondents, as they have visited the superior courts on many an occasion seeking intervention possibly harbouring the idea that it is a routine exercise. In such an exploration, they have not felt any desperation despite being unsuccessful, for the desire was not mitigation of the grievance but consumption of time which, by itself, is beneficial because the consequences of the litigation has been deferred. However, the last visit to the High Court has yielded some benefit which has pained the appellants to severely criticize the order impugned on many a ground apart from the submission that cause of justice has been vexed, for in such a situation besides the prosecution and the accused, there is a third party, the victim of the crime, who eagerly waits for the progress of the case, as mandated in law. The said stalling has impelled the informant to prefer appeals by special leave.
Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 ... vs Vs. on 5 February, 2016
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. Prison reforms have been the subject matter of discussion and decisions rendered by this Court from time to time over the last 35 years. Unfortunately, even though Article 21 of the Constitution requires a life of dignity for all persons, little appears to have changed on the ground as far as prisoners are concerned and we are once again required to deal with issues relating to prisons in the country and their reform. 2. As far back as in 1980, this Court had occasion to deal with the rights of prisoners in Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration.[1] In that decision, this Court gave a very obvious answer to the question whether prisoners are persons and whether they are entitled to fundamental rights while in custody, although there may be a shrinkage in the fundamental rights. This is what this Court had to say in this regard: “Are prisoners persons? Yes, of course. To answer in the negative is to convict the nation and the Constitution of dehumanization and to repudiate the world legal order, which now recognises rights of prisoners in the International Covenant on Prisoners’ Rights to which our country has signed assent. In Batra case,[2] this Court has rejected the hands-off doctrine and it has been ruled that fundamental rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by incarceration.
Ram Saran Varshney & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 5 February, 2016
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The challenge raised in the instant appeal is, as against the order dated 7.5.2008, namely, the charge sheet wherein the appellants before this Court have been proceeded against under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as also, under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A further challenge has also been raised, as against the order dated 12.05.2008 (passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow), taking cognizance of the charge sheet, filed against the appellants. 2. It is essential to narrate the facts leading up to the controversy. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that Mukul Gupta - appellant no.3 was married to Sonia Gupta - respondent no.2 on 11.06.1997. Ram Saran Varshney - appellant no.1 and Saroj Varshney - appellant no.2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent no.2. Appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law of respondent no.2.
Suresh Narayan Kadam & Ors vs Central Bank Of India & Ors on 5 February, 2016
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The proceedings in these petitions as indeed the proceedings in the Bombay High Court (out of which the present petitions have arisen) indicate a clear need for encouraging an amicable settlement process, preferably through mediation, in which the services of a mediator well-versed in the art, science and technique of mediation may be taken advantage of. The alternative, of course, is protracted litigation which may not be the best alternative for the contesting parties or for a society that requires expeditious justice delivery. 2. In his Foreword written on 12th April, 2011 to the first edition of “Mediation Practice & Law – The path to successful dispute resolution” written by Mr. Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate and Mediator, Mr. Fali S. Nariman, a Senior Advocate of this Court and a respected jurist, writes:
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr vs Anand Arya And Ors on 5 February, 2016
A.K. SIKRI, J. Notice, returnable forthwith. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “respondents”), who are the real contesting respondents, have appeared on Caveat and accepted notice. Keeping in view the nature of order which we propose to pass in these appeals, it was not found necessary to serve other respondents. Insofar as counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the respondents are concerned, they were ready to argue the matter finally. Accordingly, we heard the matter finally at this stage itself. Leave granted in both these matters. The appellants in these two appeals are Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Transport Corporation respectively. They feel aggrieved by the orders dated October 20, 2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM No. 12299 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5481 of 2011. In order to have a glimpse of the controversy, we may state that the matter pertains to the construction of Bus Depot by the appellants on an area situated next to Nizamuddin Bridge and behind I.P. Power Station. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5481 of 2011 was disposed of by the High Court vide orders dated September 13, 2015. It was found that as per the Master Plan 2021 (MPD 2021) for Delhi the aforesaid Bus Depot, popularly known as Millennium Bus Depot, was shown as “river flood plain” and on such are no construction could be carried out as per MPD 2021. The High Court, however, gave six months' time to the authorities to change the Master Plan, as per law, if the same was permissible, failing which the Millennium Bus Depot was to be removed from the site. This has not happened, though the order of the High Court is dated September 13, 2012. The DTC filed an application for extension of time , i.e., CM No. 12299 of 2015. By the impugned order dated October 20, 2015, the High Court has rejected the prayer for extension of time and dismissed the application. It is this order which is the subject matter of the instant appeals.
Narayanrao Jagobaji Gawande ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 February, 2016
Delay condoned. Leave granted. These appeals are directed against the common impugned judgment and order dated 29.8.2008 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in various Writ Petitions including Writ Petition No.1034 of 1995, wherein the High Court has dismissed all the writ petitions. As all the appeals raise the same question of law, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we would refer to the facts from the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 25972 of 2009. Brief facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of both the parties: On 01.01.1937, the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the “NIT Act”) came into force under which the Nagpur Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred as “NIT”) was established and incorporated to provide for improvement and expansion of Nagpur Town.
Jaya Biswal & Ors vs Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio ... on 4 February, 2016
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2014 passed in F.A.O. No. 472 of 2013 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, wherein the learned single Judge reduced the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation from Rs.10,75,253/- to Rs.6,00,000/- and also waived the award of 50% penalty with interest. The brief facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated here under: The elder son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 worked as a truck driver with one Bikram Keshari Patnaik (respondent no. 2 herein). On 19.07.2011, he met with an accident while on his way to deliver wheat bags in the truck from Berhampur, Orissa to Paralakhemundi, Andhra Pradesh. He sustained severe injuries on the back of his head and died on the spot. The cleaner of the truck, who was present at the time of the accident, gave information regarding the accident to the Mandasa Police Station, Srikakulam, whose personnel reached the spot and conducted the inquest, prepared the panchnama and sent the body of the deceased for post mortem. The cleaner also informed the father of the deceased (Appellant No.1 herein), who made arrangements for taking the dead body of his son back to the native village for cremation. On 03.11.2011, the appellants, being the father, mother and younger brother of the deceased, filed claim petition W.C. Case No. 61 of 2011 before the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Berhampur, Ganjam District. The claim of the appellants was that the deceased was aged around 26 years at the time of death and had died while he was in and during the course of employment of respondent no. 2 herein. They claimed that he was getting monthly wages at Rs.4,000/- per month, daily bhatta (allowance) at Rs.200/- which comes to Rs.6,000/- per month, along with additional trip benefit amounting to Rs.3,000/-, the total amounting to Rs.13,000/- per month. On this basis, they claimed a lump sum of Rs.18,00,000/- as pecuniary damages towards loss of past and future wages and loss of earning. They claimed additional amount of Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony, physical shock and pain, and Rs.50,000/- towards expectation of life and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, inconvenience and hardships caused to the family members of the deceased on account of the death of deceased.
S.N. Bhardwaj vs Archeological Survey Of India & ... on 4 February, 2016
A.K. SIKRI, J. Sultan Giyasuddin Tughlaq founded the Tughlak Dynesty and ruled during the period 1321-1325 A.D. He constructed the historic Tughlakabad Fort in Tughlakabad spreading over an area of about 3000 bighas and area-wise it is considered one of the largest among all the Forts in Delhi. Tughlakabad Fort is regarded as the third major city after Kila Rai Pithora, which was built by the Rajput Anang Pal Tomer, and the Siri Fort, which was built by Allaudin Khilji. The Fort has its national importance. It has been declared as protected monument. Therefore, it is the legal as well as ethical obligation of the concerned authorities to protect this heritage site and to properly maintain it. Notwithstanding, over a period of time, the place is encroached upon and rampant illegal construction carried out by many people.
Kerala Pub.Service Commn.& Ors vs State Information Commn.& Anr on 4 February, 2016
M.Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted. 2. In these two appeals the short question which needs consideration is as to whether the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by impugned judgment has rightly held that the respondents are entitled not only to get information with regard to the scan copies of their answer sheet, tabulation-sheet containing interview marks but also entitled to know the names of the examiners who have evaluated the answer sheet. 3. The information sought for by the respondents were denied by the State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority. However, the State Information Commission allowed the second appeal and held that there is no fiduciary relationship in case of answer scripts. Further, the interview marks cannot be considered as personal information, since the public authority had already decided to publish them.
Pepesico India Holding P.Ltd vs Grocery Market & Shops Board & Ors on 4 February, 2016
KURIAN, J. 1. The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by the Judgment dated 22.07.2009 passed by the High Court of judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4937 of 2009. 2. The dispute pertains to the application of the Scheme framed under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. 3. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that there was also a challenge with regard to the application of the Act as well. Be that as it may, the High Court, by the impugned Judgment has relegated the appellant to the remedy available under Section 5 of the Act which reads as under :-
© 2012 District Court Bar Association - Thalassery. People behind the website

WANT TO SAY HELLO?

phone : 04902341278, Fax no 0490 2323537,
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, THALASSERRY 670101