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.


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.

Ramanlal & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 15 May, 2015
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave assail a common judgment and order dated 7th May, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby Criminal Appeal No.631 of 2000 filed by the appellants challenging their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC has been dismissed and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to each one of them by the trial Court affirmed. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 2nd July, 1998 at about 10 O’ clock in the morning Ved Pal and his brother Gopal, now deceased, were watering their fields in village Doongriwala, district Faridabad in the State of Haryana. At about 12.00 noon Jai Pal, son of Nihar Singh entered their field in which the two brothers had grown their paddy crop. Deceased-Gopal appears to have objected to Jai Pal’s trespass into the paddy crop to which objection Jai Pal gave an abusive reply insisting that he would pass through the paddy crop regardless of Gopal’s objection. While this altercation was going on between deceased-Gopal and Jai Pal, 10 to 12 persons appeared on the spot armed with lathis, pharsas and ballams. They included Har Chand, Digamber and Bhagat Singh sons of Jairam; Rajbir, Lal and Bhola sons of Har Chand; Jagdish son of Girraj; Rattan Lal son of Jagdish; Naresh and Rajkumar sons of Ramesh all Jats by caste and residents of village Doongriwala. They are alleged to have given a lalkara to eliminate Ved Pal and deceased Gopal and assaulted both of them causing several injuries including an injury on the head of the deceased-Gopal that felled him to the ground. The injured were removed to the hospital at Hodal for treatment where Ved Pal made a statement which was made before ASI Narain Singh that led to the registration of a case against the persons aforementioned for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 307 of the IPC. With Gopal succumbing to the injuries in the Escorts Hospital at Faridabad, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was converted into one of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Investigation by the police led to the arrest of accused Har Chand, Digambar and Jagdish on 3rd July, 1998. Several recoveries from the accused persons are said to have been made in the course of investigation which culminated in filing of a charge-sheet against ten persons in all excluding Bhagat Singh son of Jai Ram who even though named in the FIR, was found innocent while Jai Pal being a juvenile was referred to the Juvenile Court at Faridabad. The net result was that nine out of those named in the FIR only were eventually committed to face the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge at Faridabad for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. At the trial, Bhagat Singh son of Jai Ram was also added as an accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C, taking the number of those accused to face the trial to ten in all.
Ranjeet Kumar Ram @ Ranjeet Kumar ... vs State Of Bihar on 15 May, 2015
R. BANUMATHI, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeals (DB) No.268/2008, 357/2008, 451/2008, No.156/2008 and Death Reference No.6/2008, in and by which, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons confirming the verdict of conviction on the charge of murder of five years old boy Vicky and dismissed the death reference by converting the death sentence of Chintoo Singh (A-5) into life imprisonment. 2. On 27.02.2006, Sunil Kumar Singh-PW8, a vegetable vendor in Paswan Chowk, lodged a complaint stating that his son Vicky aged five years was playing near PW8’s vegetable shop and Rubi Kumari aged seven years sister of the victim boy Vicky was also playing with him. At that time two unknown persons [later identified as Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3)] offered chocolates to Vicky and other children and took away Vicky saying that they would come back and drop the boy; but the boy Vicky did not come back. On the above complaint on 28.02.2006, a case was registered as P.S. Case No.105/2006 at Hazipur Town (Industrial Area), Police Station, Vaishali. Inspite of search, the missing boy could not be traced. After 5-6 days passed, Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4), who were also vegetable vendors in the same market i.e. at Paswan Chowk, told PW8 that his son would come back if he would pay money. Nearly after three months of the incident, on 23.06.2006, PW8 received a phone call and the kidnappers demanded a ransom of four lakh rupees for return of his son; but PW8 expressed his helplessness to meet the demand, and the demand was reduced to two lakh rupees. Another telephone call was received by PW8 on 1.07.2006 and the final amount of ransom was fixed for Rs.1,05,000/-. On 3.07.2006, PW8 received another call from the kidnappers and PW8 informed them that he has arranged the ransom money and PW8 was asked to bring the money at New Gandak Bridge ahead of Line Hotel of Bachcha Babu at Sonepur. When PW8 expressed fear in coming alone with money, he was instructed by the kidnappers to come with his neighbours Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4).
Canara Bank & Anr vs M. Mahesh Kumar on 15 May, 2015
R. BANUMATHI, J. Common question of law falling for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the dependant family members of the deceased employee of the appellant-Canara Bank were entitled to seek compassionate appointment on the basis of ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ which was passed Vide Circular No.154/1993 w.e.f. 8.05.1993. The claim is resisted by the Canara Bank on the ground that the financial condition of the family members of the deceased employees is good and that the Scheme dated 8.05.1993 has been replaced with scheme dated 14.02.2005 (H. O. Circular No.35/2005) scrapping the provision of compassionate appointment and in lieu thereof introduced the new scheme of ex-gratia payment.
C.I.T Mumbai vs M/S Sarkar Builders on 15 May, 2015
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. No doubt the assessees/respondents in all these appeals are different and even assessment years are different. But the question of law which is raised by the Income Tax Authorities (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue') is identical. The assessees are subject to the jurisdiction of the different High Courts, all of whom had claimed the benefit of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act ('Act' for short), namely, deduction in respect of profits and gains on the ground that their cases were covered by sub- section (10) of Section 80IB which provides for deduction of 100% of profits in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects when such profits are derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing projects, provided the conditions contained in the said sub-section are satisfied. High Courts have taken the same view holding that these assessees would be entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. We may also point out at this stage itself that though Section 80IB has been on the statute book for quite some time, a new Section 80IB had been introduced by the Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 01.04.2000. All these cases are covered by the said Section, as introduced. However, insofar as sub-section (10) is concerned, with which we are directly concerned, there have been amendments in that provision from time to time. We are concerned with the amendment to the said sub-section carried out by Finance No.2 Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005. In all these cases, though the housing projects were sanctioned much before the said amendment but have been completed after 01.04.2005 when amended provision has come into operation. It is also not in dispute that the amendment is prospective in nature. Interestingly, when the housing project was approved by a local authority, which is the requirement under sub-section (10) of Section 80IB, as on that date, the conditions stipulated in the said sub-section were met by the assessees. However, condition in clause (d) which was laid down for the first time by the amendment made effective from 01.04.2005 is not fulfilled. In this scenario, the question is as to whether the new conditions mentioned in the amended provision have also to be fulfilled only because the housing projects in question, though started before 01.04.2005, were completed after the said date. The question of law, that arises for discussion that needs to be answered is thus common in all these appeals and can be formulated as under:
Seshasayee Paper & Board Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 15 May, 2015
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15251 of 2008. Facts, as they appear in Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005, are taken note of as the following substantial question of law, which arises for consideration, is common in these appeals: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed before the allowance of the unabsorbed investment allowance in computing income of the appellant/assessee for the Assessment Year 1991-1992, when the assessee had not claimed the unabsorbed depreciation in its income-tax return though it had claimed depreciation for the current year?
M/S Gmg Engineering Industries & ... vs M/S Isaa Green Power Solution & Ors on 15 May, 2015
R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of common order dated 16.04.2013, passed by the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.4/2013 and C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.5/2013 respectively, confirming the order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, imposing conditions to deposit Rs.1,50,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-, as a condition to condone the delay in filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees passed in O.S.No.3 of 2011 and O.S. No.6 of 2011. 3. Appellants and respondents entered into an agreement of sale on 1.08.2008, under which the respondents agreed to purchase the property of the appellants being the factory premise for a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and the respondents paid Rs.1,50,00,000/- towards part of sale consideration. The sale transaction could not be completed. The respondents issued legal notice dated 24.11.2010 calling upon the appellants either to execute the sale deed or refund the advance amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The appellants received the said notice and sent the reply offering to return the said amount but without interest. The respondents filed the suit being O.S.No.3/2011 for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- with interest. The case was adjourned from time to time on various dates. On 16.06.2011, the appellants-defendants were set ex- parte in the suit. After recording evidence adduced by the respondents- plaintiffs on 5.07.2011, the said suit was decreed ex-parte by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.
Bilaspur Raipur K.Gramin Bank And ... vs Madanlal Tandon on 15 May, 2015
M. Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2012, whereby Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the writ appeal preferred by the appellants upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and directed payment towards respondent’s claim of salary up to Rs.5,00,000/- with all consequential benefits. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent was working as a Field Supervisor in the appellant Bank since 1981. In February, 1984, a charge-sheet was issued to him for having committed misconduct and after a departmental inquiry, an order dated 5.7.1984 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of stoppage of his two annual increments. Thereafter a second charge-sheet was issued to the respondent in November, 1987 alleging that the respondent had committed several financial irregularities in various loan cases. An inquiry was conducted, wherein fourteen charges were found proved against the respondent and three charges were not found proved. Consequently, the punishment of removal from service was inflicted against the respondent on 1.10.1991. Respondent preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank, but the same was dismissed.
Manyata Devi vs State Of U.P & Ors on 15 May, 2015
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises of out an order dated 2nd April, 2013, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby Writ Petition No.17398 of 2013 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the order passed by the District Magistrate, Basti, refusing to issue a character certificate in favour of the appellant upheld. 3. The appellant appears to have applied to the District Collector, Basti, for a character/enlistment certificate in her favour, which it appears is one of the requirements prescribed for registration as a contractor under the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, as proprietor of M/s Krishna Construction was already registered as a contractor but since the said registration was valid only for a period three years ending 31st June, 2009, a fresh character/solvency certificate was necessary for renewal of her registration.
Prem Ram vs M.D. Uttarakhand Pey Jal & ... on 15 May, 2015
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 30th June, 2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital whereby Special Appeal No.128 of 2011 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition 324(MS) of 2004 affirmed. 3. The appellant, it appears, was appointed as a daily-wager in the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam sometime in the year 1988. Nine years later his services were terminated in February 1997. The termination, when assailed by the appellant before the Labour Court, was set aside with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant with 50% back wages and continuity of service. The writ petition filed by the respondent-Jal Nigam who is the successor-in interest of the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Pey Jal Nigam against the award made by the Labour Court succeeded only in part and to the extent that the award of back wages was deleted from the award by the Labour Court. It is common ground that pursuant to the award, the appellant was allowed to rejoin as a daily-wager and to serve the respondent-Jal Nigam till the date of his superannuation upon completion of 60 years of age.
K.L Bakolia vs State Th. Director,C.B.I on 15 May, 2015
R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.207/2003 dated 11.7.2013, in and by which, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence imposed on him. 3. Shamsher Singh-complainant (PW4) is the sole proprietor of M/s. Colonel’s Security Services working on contract for providing security staff to Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Pusa, New Delhi on annual basis from 1.03.1993 which was subsequently renewed from year to year basis upto 31.03.1996 and the contract was due for renewal on 1.04.1996. Complainant stated that on 2.04.1996 when he contacted the appellant for renewal of his contract and payment of his outstanding dues, the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- as a bribe for renewal of contract and when complainant stated that he was not in a position to pay Rs.50,000/-, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.20,000/- and the complainant was asked to meet the appellant on 3.04.1996 and pay the bribe amount. Complainant was not interested in paying the bribe and on the same day he went to CBI office and narrated the facts. The complainant was asked to come on the next day with Rs.20,000/- by CBI officer. In the evening of 3.04.1996, the appellant rang up the complainant and inquired him as to why he did not contact him on the said date, for which, the complainant replied that he would come to the residence of the appellant on the next day between 1.00 to 2.00 p.m.
Abdul Razak & Ors vs The State Of Karnataka R/By ... on 15 May, 2015
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave call in question a judgment and order dated 19th November, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga whereby Criminal Appeal No.1926 of 2007 has been allowed, judgment and order of the Trial Court acquitting the appellants set aside, and the appellants convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. A fine of Rs.5,000/- each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period one year has also been awarded to the appellant. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that three years before the date of incident CW-11 Md. Shafi sold two acres of land to CW-2 Lingappa. The accused-appellants herein were upset by the said sale transaction and are alleged to be picking up quarrels with CW-2 besides causing obstruction in the free flow of water to the fields owned by the complainant from a distributory at Narayanapur. The appellants are alleged to be insisting that they will let water for irrigation flow only if the land purchased by the complainant was transferred in their favour. Lingappa was on that count coerced to sell the said two acres of land purchased from Mohd. Sahfi to accused-Abdul Razak. Despite this, however, the obstruction in the flow of water continued as the appellants started demanding money for letting the water flow. It was in the above background that on 19th September, 2006 at about 7.30 p.m. the appellants are alleged to have caught hold of Lingappa’s son Basavaraj-deceased while he was returning home, tied his hands behind his back splashed chilly powder on his face and assaulted him with a club of stones causing injuries on his head and other parts of body leading to his death. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by Hanumantha (PW-1), brother of the deceased, and Mannamma (PW-4), mother of the deceased. In connection with the incident Crime No.168 of 2006 was registered at Hutti Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants herein.
Munna Lal Jain & Anr vs Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2015
KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. The never ending dispute on computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is the subject matter of this appeal as well. In the absence of any statutory and a straight jacket formula, there are bound to be grey areas despite several attempts made by this Court to lay down the guidelines. Compensation would basically depend on the evidence available in a case and the formulas shown by the courts are only guidelines for the computation of the compensation. That precisely is the reason the courts lodge a caveat stating “ordinarily”, “normally”, “exceptional circumstances”, etc., while suggesting the formula.
Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 14 May, 2015
A.K. SIKRI, J. This writ petition filed by the petitioner, namely, the Madras Bar Association, is sequel to the earlier proceedings which culminated in the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association[1] (hereinafter referred to as the '2010 judgment'). In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of creation of National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT' for short) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT' for short), along with certain other provisions pertaining thereto which were incorporated by the Legislature in Parts 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1956') by Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002.
Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 May, 2015
Dipak Misra, J. The Controversy The seminal issue that spiralled in the course of hearing of this appeal centres around the question framed vide order dated 18.2.2015, for this Court thought it apposite to answer, whether the poem titled “Gandhi Mala Bhetala” (‘I met Gandhi’) in the magazine named the ‘Bulletin’ which was published, in July-August, 1994 issue, meant for private circulation amongst the members of All India Bank Association Union, could in the ultimate eventuate give rise to framing of charge under Section 292 IPC against the author, the publisher and the printer. The question framed reads thus:- “Regard being had to the importance of the matter, we had sought the assistance of Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel, to assist the Court, and he has gladly rendered. At the time of hearing, we have asked the learned senior counsel, learned Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court as regards the proposition whether in a write-up or a poem, keeping in view the concept and conception of poetic license and the liberty of perception and expression, use the name of a historically respected personality by way of allusion or symbol is permissible.” Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, in his written note of submissions, has segregated the said question into five parts, namely, (a) whether there could be a reference to a historically respected personality; (b) could that reference be by way of allusion or symbol; (c) could that allusion be resorted to in a write-up or a poem; (d) whether the conception and concept of poetic license permits adopting an allusion; and (e) whether any of the above could involve ascribing words or acts to a historically reputed personality which could appear obscene to a reader. He has urged with solemn vehemence that when the author is not represented before the Court, adjudication on an important issue which fundamentally relates to freedom of thought and expression, would be inappropriate and a poem or a write-up is indeed a part of free speech and expression, as perceived under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that apart the expression “poetic licence” is neither a concept nor a conception because the idea of a poetic freedom is a guaranteed and an enforceable fundamental right and this Court should not detract and convert it into a permissive licence. Additionally, learned senior counsel has contended that quintessential liberty of perception and expression when placed in juxtaposition with “poetic licence”, is inapposite since the expression “permissible” sounds a discordant note with “liberty of perception and expression”, a sacrosanct fundamental right, integral to human dignity, thought, feeling, behaviour, expression and all jural concepts of human freedom guaranteed not only under the Constitution but even recognised under the International Covenants, for they can never be placed in the company or association of expressions such as “license” or “permissibility”. Emphasising on the said facet, submitted Mr. Subramanium that the Constitution has liberated the citizens from ‘license’ and ‘permissibility’, which are expressions of disempowerment and the entire freedom struggle was centered around the concept of empowerment. There is a suggestion in the written note of submissions to place the matter before a Bench of five Judges as enshrined under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. In spite of the said submission, learned senior counsel, we must appreciably state, has copiously dealt with the issues that have emerged from the question, in his written note of submissions. Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel and amicus curiae supported the phraseology in the question with immense intellectual vigour, patience, perseverance and endeavour and submitted that the issue that this Court has thought of addressing is absolutely invulnerable and unalterable as the Constitution of India does not recognise absolute freedom and Article 19(2) of the Constitution regulates the same and Section 292 IPC being a provision which is saved by Article 19(2), the presence or absence of the author is immaterial; what is to be seen is whether the poem prima facie exhibits obscenity, especially, in the context of Mahatma Gandhi, the “Father of the Nation”, as the identity of the historically respected personality is absolutely clear and there is no scintilla of doubt in the mind of any average reader. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the question deserves to be dealt with and answered in proper perspective.
Common Cause & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The prayer in IA No.13/2014 filed by Common Cause & others is two- fold: Direct Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director CBI, not to interfere in the coal block allocation case investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI and to recuse himself from these cases. Direct an SIT appointed by the Hon’ble Court to investigate the abuse of authority committed by the CBI Director in order to scuttle inquires, investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI in coal block allocation cases and other important cases. 2. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, since Mr. Ranjit Sinha, the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short the CBI) has admittedly superannuated on or about 2nd December, 2014 the question of his recusal from investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI in respect of cases arising out of what is now commonly known as the Coal Block Allocations case has become infructuous. We are, therefore, concerned only with the second prayer in the application.
Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2015
Chelameswar, J. 1. These five civil appeals under Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “TRAI Act”) and three writ petitions raise common questions. Each of the appellants or the petitioners, as the case may be, in these matters (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘LICENSEES’) is a licensee holding a licence granted under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for providing TELEGRAPH services in the various earmarked service areas. 2. It appears from the judgment of this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Others v. Union of India & Others, (2012) 3 SCC 1, hereinafter referred to as 2G case, that the first telegraph link in India was experimented in 1839 between Calcutta and Diamond Harbor separated by a distance of 21 miles. By an act of the British Parliament, known as the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the privilege of “establishing, maintaining and working of telegraphs” within the territory of British India was exclusively conferred under Section 4 upon the Central Government – an expression which bore different meanings at different points of time in this country, the details of which may not be necessary for the purpose of this case. However, proviso to the said section enabled the Central Government to licence any person to exercise the privilege which is otherwise exclusive to the Central Government.
Mahila Ramkali Devi And Ors vs Nandram Thr. Lrs.& Ors on 14 May, 2015
M. Y. EQBAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which allowed the respondents’ appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff- Appellants for declaration of title and possession of the suit property. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the suit property was originally owned by Hardayal who had two sons Raghuvardayal and Mahadev Prasad. When Hardayal died, the suit property fell to the share of Raghuvardayal and on his death it passed on to his wife Sumitra and then his son Radhakishan and then Radhakishan’s wife Ajuddhibai. 3. The plaintiff/appellant no.1 filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property in Gwalior against the deceased Nandram and deceased Kashiram, who were original defendant nos.1 and 2 respectively and are now being represented through legal representatives and also against defendant no.3 Rukmani Bai. The case of the Appellants was that before Ajuddhibai died issueless in 22.6.1961, she had executed a Will dated 21.1.1961 in favour of plaintiff/appellant no.1 who was the wife of Baijnath, son of Mahadev Prasad. The probate of the Will was also stated to have been obtained. The Appellants challenged the validity of the sale deed dated 19.12.1950 purported to have been executed by Ajuddhibai in favour of defendant no.3-Rukmani Bai and sale deed dated 1.2.1962 executed by Rukmani Bai in favour of deceased Nandram-defendant no.1 and deceased Kashiram- defendant no.2 and alleged that defendant nos.1 and 2 were thus in illegal possession of the suit property. The defendants Nandram and Kashiram denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that they had legally obtained the title of the suit property vide sale deed dated 1.2.1962 though one Ram Singh who was the sub-tenant of Ajuddhibai.
M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd vs Dy.Commr.Of Cen.Exc.& Ors on 14 May, 2015
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. Union of India, vide Memorandum dated December 24, 1997, unveiled a new industrial policy for the North-Eastern region. In the said policy, in order to give stimulation to the development of industrial infrastructure in the North-Eastern region, the said region was made tax free zone for a period of ten years giving incentives to those who wanted to establish industries in that region. Pursuant thereto, the Notification dated July 08, 1999 was issued granting new industrial units that had commercial production on or after December 24, 1997 and certain types of industrial units that increased their installed capacity after that date, exemption on goods cleared from units located in growth centres and integrated infrastructure centres.
Joshi Technologies ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015
A.K. SIKRI, J. Present appeal impugnes the judgment and order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi, thereby dismissing the writ petition which was filed by the appellant. It so happened that the appellant had entered into two contracts dated 20.02.1995 with the Union of India, through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) in the year 1992 relating to exploration of certain oil fields which the Union of India had selected in Gujarat and other States. These contracts were on production sharing basis for Dholka and Wavel Oil Fields respectively. It started the production after entering into the contract and filed its income tax return on the income generated from the aforesaid production. In the returns, the appellant claimed benefit of Section 42 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 42 is a special provision for deductions in the case of business for prospecting, etc. for mineral oil. It provides for certain additional allowances as are specified in the agreement, details thereof would be taken note of hereinafter. We may, however, point out here itself that such allowances, as stipulated in the Section, are to be specifically mentioned in the agreement as well, which is entered into with the Central Government and it is also necessary that such an agreement has been laid on the Table of each House of Parliament.
Rajdeep Sardesai vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 14 May, 2015
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. The present group of appeals is directed against the final common judgment and order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1638 of 2008 and batch matters whereby, the High Court dismissed all the criminal petitions except Criminal Petition No. 7592 of 2007, which were filed against the order of summoning in various complaints filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the second respondent. The following table would be apposite to clarify which appeal is filed against which criminal petition/complaint case:-|(Gulab Kothari & Ors. v.|2008 before High |Sec. 200 Cr.PC|No.6582 dated| |State of A.P. & Anr.) |Court against CC |before the |27.10.2007 | |and 858/2012 (Hemender |No.3/2008-reg. |Court of II | | |Sharma & Ors. v. State |publication of |Addl. | | |of A.P. & Ors. |news item in |Metropolitan | | | |Rajasthan Patrika,|Sessions | | | |Saturday Edn. |Judge, | | | |dated 12.5.2007 |Nampally, | | | |under the Heading |imposing | | | |“Vanjara Par |charges under | | | |Kastha Phanda |Ss. 499, 500, | | | | |501, 502 and | | | | |120B of IPC | | |Crl.A.851/2012 (Lateef |Crl. P. No.1252 of|199(2) r/w |G.O. Rt. | |Mohammad Khan v. State |2008 filed before |Sec.200 Cr.PC |No.6580 and | |of A.P. & Anr.) |High Court against|before the |dated | | |CC No.24/2007-reg.|court of I |27.10.2007 | | |publication of |Addl. | | | |news items in |Metropolitan | | | |Siasath Urdu |Sessions | | | |Daily, dated |Judge, | | | |8.5.2007 |Hyderabad | | | | |imposing | | | | |allegations | | | | |under Sections| | | | |499, 500, 501,| | | | |502 and 120B | | | | |of IPC | | Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:
© 2012 District Court Bar Association - Thalassery. People behind the website


phone : 04902341278, Fax no 0490 2323537,