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.

D.N. Jeevaraj vs Chief Sec., Govt. Of Karnataka & ... on 27 November, 2015
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. Leave granted in both petitions. 2. The question for consideration is whether the appellants (Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj) have per se violated the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement that they have individually entered into with the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’) by constructing a multi- storeyed residential building on the plots allotted to them. The alternative question is whether the construction made by them is contrary to the plan sanctioned by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the BBMP’) and thereby violated the lease-cum-sale agreement with the BDA. The term of the lease-cum-sale agreement alleged to have been violated is clause 4 which reads as follows:
Chairman Sebi vs Roofit Industries Ltd on 26 November, 2015
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 These Appeals lay siege to the decision of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) which modified the order of the Adjudicating Officer under SEBI, reducing the penalty payable by the Respondent, Roofit Industries Ltd., under Section 15A of the Securities And Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act) from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 60,000. In the connected matters, the penalty imposed by the Appellant SEBI was reduced from Rs. 75,00,000 to Rs. 15,000 in five cases and Rs. 60,000 in one case. What formulae, if any, has been followed in these reductions is not forthcoming, making the exercise pregnant to the possibility of arbitrariness if not inconsistency or caprice.
State Of Up And Ors vs Ajay Kumar Sharma And Anr on 26 November, 2015
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. appointment of District Government Counsel (Civil and Criminal) in the Subordinate Courts across the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State as the Appellant, has assailed the final judgment and order dated 5.11.2014 in Writ Petition being Misc. Bench No. 9127 of 2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court in this impugned Order has quashed the Orders of the State Government terminating the appointment of District Government Counsel and has further directed the State Government to reconsider their renewal. Indubitably, the appointments as well as the renewals would have to be in consonance with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for brevity) and the Legal Remembrancer Manual (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LR Manual’) applicable throughout the State of U.P. The Manual which came into force in 1975 inter alia prescribes mandatory ‘consultation’ with the District Judge and the District Magistrate on the one side and the State on the other. 4 In August 2008, the then State Government, in terms of the Government Order dated 13.8.2008, had amended the LR Manual thereby removing the process of consultation with the District Judge for the appointment of District Government Counsel; effectively, thereafter the LR Manual required the State to only consult with the District Magistrate. It was on the basis of the LR Manual as amended that the Respondents before us came to be appointed as District Government Counsel across the length and breadth of the State of U.P. This is a noteworthy feature on which our decision will turn in some measure. The State Government’s Order, which is dated 13.8.2008, came to be assailed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in a bunch of more than 100 writ petitions, including the lead petition U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti v. State of U.P. Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 7851 of 2008 reported as (2012 (30) LCD 1066). By an Order dated 6.1.2012 passed in those proceedings, the High Court directed the State to make fresh appointments expeditiously, and in the interregnum permitted the existing empanelled Advocates to discharge their duties. Shortly thereafter, in Bishan Pal Saxena v. State of U.P. Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 8246 of 2011, in terms of its Order dated 12.1.2012 the High Court directed the State of U.P. to reconsider the selection and appointment of Advocates to the “post of Additional District Government Counsel, Assistant District Government Counsel, Panel lawyers and Sub District Government Counsel”; that the persons appointed in pursuance of old provisions would continue till the completion of the reconsideration process; and, all fresh appointments would be carried out strictly in conformity with U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti and Sadhna Sharma v. State of U.P [Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 7825 of 2011].
State Of H.P.& Ors vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors on 26 November, 2015
This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment dated 7.5.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents was allowed and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were quashed, holding that every landowner of the family of one Dev Raj was entitled for a separate unit. 2. The facts in nutshell are that Dev Raj, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, was holding land measuring 2400 kanals 9 marlas in village Kalroohi and Mubarikpur as owner. He was issued notice in form C-V in which area measuring 1767 Kanals 9 Marlas was proposed to be declared as surplus under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Instead of filing objection, the landowner filed a writ petition in which High Court directed that the determination of surplus area be made by the Collector. On 22.7.1976, the Collector, Una District passed an order holding that the land owned by wife of late Dev Raj namely, Smt. Kala Devi, and Yash Pal, Dharam Pal, Ram Pal sons of Dev Raj be excluded from the holding of landowner Dev Raj and all the members of the family holding land continue to enjoy rights therein to the extent of the determined permissible area. Thereafter, while deciding reference in revision, the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh remanded the case to the Collector for decision afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the respondents. After remand, the Collector Land Ceiling, Una passed order holding that Dev Raj and that of his family with Ram Paul being adult son on the appointed day i.e.24.1.1971, the landowner is entitled for two units of land as permissible area.
A.R. Dahiya vs Securities & Exchange Board Of ... on 26 November, 2015
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 This Appeal assails the Judgment dated 19.4.2006 of the Securities Appellate Tribunal which upheld the order of the Securities and Exchange Board of India dated 1.8.2003. The factual matrix is that one Mr. V.P. Garg (hereinafter referred to as ‘Garg’) entered into an ‘Assisted Sector Agreement’ with the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘HSIDC’) on 4.1.1993, for the purpose of setting up a modern resort hotel complex at Village Chowky, Tehsil Kalka, Haryana. The parties agreed to collaborate for the profitable implementation and operation of the project in the assisted sector through a company already incorporated by Garg under the name and style of Polo Hotels Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Target Company’). HSIDC extended a term loan to Garg and also subscribed to 3,00,000 shares of Rs. 10/- each of the Target Company. Clause 24 of the Agreement provided for buy-back of the shares of HSIDC. The said clause is reproduced for facility of reference:
State Of U.P. & Ors vs United Bank Of India on 26 November, 2015
Since all these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 3.11.2009, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the impugned judgment dated 3.11.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner United Bank of India was allowed and necessary directions were issued. Aggrieved by those directions, the appellants have come to this Court. 3. In the writ petition No.775 of 1999, the writ petitioner namely United Bank of India sought the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 19.12.1998 contained in Annexure ‘6’ to this writ petition.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Nestle India Ltd on 24 November, 2015
The respondent herein is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of instant tea falling under Chapter 2101.20 of schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The present appeal is concerned with clearances of their product to two sister units on payment of duty in terms of Notification No.8/97 - CE dated 1.3.1997 and Notification No.23/2003 CE dated 31.3.2003. The first notification would cover the period 1.11.2000 to 30.3.2003 and the second notification would cover the period 31.3.2003 to 31.5.2005. Inasmuch as the instant tea was manufactured wholly out of indigenous raw materials, the notifications aforesaid applied and whatever was in excess of what is chargeable by way of excise duty on the said tea is exempted. It is not in dispute that the said notifications applied in the facts of the instant case.
Commercial Taxes Officer vs A Infrastructure Ltd on 24 November, 2015
Dipak Misra, J. This batch of appeals, by special leave, calls in question the legal acceptability of the common order dated 19th December, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jodhpur in a batch of revision petitions filed by the assessee-respondent assailing the judgment dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short ‘the Board’) in Appeal No. 680 of 2009 and other connected appeals whereby it had affirmed the decision rendered in appeals by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who had upheld the assessment orders passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer in respect of various quarters of the years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 disallowing the claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and charging interest under Sections 18, 22 and 55(4) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for brevity “the 2003Act”).
M/S Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling ... vs Commnr. Of Central Excise & Anr on 24 November, 2015
1. Leave granted. 2. This batch of appeals raises questions relating to the demand for interest and penalty under Rules 96ZO, 96 ZP and 96 ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1994, which were framed in order to effectuate the provisions contained in Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Several High Courts have struck down the said Rules relating to penalty as being ultra vires the parent provision and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Most of the appeals in this batch are, therefore, by the Union of India. However, before dealing with the said appeals, it is necessary to first segregate Civil Appeal No.4280 of 2007 which raises a slightly different question from the questions raised in the other appeals and decide it first.
Shamsher Singh Verma vs State Of Haryana on 24 November, 2015
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 25.8.2015, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby said Court has affirmed the order dated 21.2.2015, passed by the Special Judge, Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014, and rejected the application of the accused for getting exhibited the compact disc, filed in defence and to get the same proved from Forensic Science Laboratory. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. Briefly stated, a report was lodged against the appellant (accused) on 25.10.2013 at Police Station, Civil Lines, Kaithal, registered as FIR No. 232 in respect of offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and one relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2015 (POCSO) in which complainant Munish Verma alleged that his minor niece was molested by the appellant. It appears that after investigation, a charge sheet is filed against the appellant, on the basis of which Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014 was registered. Special Judge, Kaithal, after hearing the parties, on 28.3.2014 framed charge in respect of offences punishable under Sections 354A and 376 IPC and also in respect of offence punishable under Sections 4/12 of POCSO. Admittedly prosecution witnesses have been examined in said case, whereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). In defence the accused has examined four witnesses, and an application purported to have been moved under Section 294 CrPC filed before the trial court with following prayer: -
K.S. Soundararajan And Ors vs Commissioner Of H.R. & C.E. And Ors on 24 November, 2015
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Letters Patent Appeal No.183 of 1994, wherein the Division Bench held that the first object of the three charities mentioned in the Will, is of private Trust and the rest are of public Trust and therefore, the respondent no.1 and 2 therein, have power under Section 64 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, to frame a scheme, in so far as, the public Trust is concerned. 2. Briefly the facts are summarized as follows : One Sundararaja Naidu had no male issues, except two daughters and his brother’s son is Kondasamy Naidu and he executed a registered Will dated 7.12.1949 bequeathing properties mentioned in Item nos.1, 2 and 3 absolutely in favour of them and directed Kondasamy Naidu to be in possession of Item no.4 and perform the charities mentioned in the Will from out of the income of the said properties and prohibited the alienation of the said item of land. Later Kondasamy Naidu alienated a portion of land in Item no.4 in the Will and claimed to have purchased some other properties from out of the sale proceeds.
Securities & Exchange Board Of ... vs Icap India Pvt. Ltd on 24 November, 2015
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. This appeal under Section 15Z of the Securities & Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for brevity, ‘the SEBI Act’) has been preferred by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (for brevity, ‘the SEBI’) to challenge the judgment and order dated 14.08.2006 passed by the learned Securities Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SAT’) in Appeal No.56 of 2004. The substantial question of law falling for determination involves interpretation of the term ‘annual turnover’ as it finds mention in the Explanation after paragraph 3 of Schedule III to the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers & Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992 (for brevity, ‘the Regulations’). The aforesaid Explanation reads as follows :
Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant having lost the battle for getting her Stridhan back from her husband, the first respondent herein, before the learned Magistrate on the ground that the claim preferred under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the 2005 Act’) was not entertainable as she had ceased to be an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the 2005 Act and further that the claim as put forth was barred by limitation; preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who concurred with the view expressed by the learned Magistrate, and being determined to get her lawful claim, she, despite the repeated non-success, approached the High Court of Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2014 with the hope that she will be victorious in the war to get her own property, but the High Court, as is perceivable, without much analysis, declined to interfere by passing an order with Spartan austerity possibly thinking lack of reasoning is equivalent to a magnificent virtue and that had led the agonised and perturbed wife to prefer the present appeal, by special leave.
Elektron Lighting Systems Pvt Ltd ... vs Shah Investments Financials ... on 20 November, 2015
Prafulla C. Pant, J. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 14.10.2014 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby Writ Petition Nos. 7843 of 2014 and 8211 of 2014, are allowed, and the work order dated 03.09.2014, and consequential agreement between the appellants and respondent No. 3, are quashed. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 01.08.2014 respondent no. 3 - Aurangabad Municipal Corporation (for short “municipal corporation”) invited tenders for replacement of existing street lights by Light Emitting Diodes (LED) fittings with refurbishment of street light infrastructure on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis. The contractor was required to complete the project within one year and recover the payment from the municipal corporation through Ninety six Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) over a period of eight years. Response to E-tender notice was required to be made in two separate parts, namely, technical bid and price bid. As per the tender notice, the tender forms were made available from 01.08.2014 to 20.08.2014. The period of submission of bids was extended up to 28.08.2014.
State Of Rajasthan vs Ramesh on 20 November, 2015
Prafulla C. Pant,J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 04.01.2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, whereby said Court has allowed D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000, and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against respondent Ramesh by Sessions Judge, Jaipur, under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and acquitted him of the charge. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that PW-1 Prithviraj Singh gave a telephonic information on 28.04.1999 at about 10.55 p.m. to PW-7 Bhagwan Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station Kalwad that Sheela, eldest daughter of his servant Ramesh (respondent) has committed suicide by hanging. The Station House Officer rushed to the spot. He made enquiries from Ramesh in the farm house where he used to work, and lived with his three daughters. He (Ramesh) told the Station House Officer that his daughter went out of the farm house at about 8.30 p.m. and came back after some time. Ramesh further told that he objected to his daughter’s conduct of meeting PW-9 Bablu, and scolded her. Thereafter power went off. He further told the Station House Officer that after some time when generator was started, he saw that Sheela has hanged herself. The knot was opened and the body was brought down. The Station House Officer mentioned these facts in the report/marg No. 7/99 prepared under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He prepared site plan, took dead body in his possession, and got prepared inquest report (Ex. P-1) in the early hours of 29.04.1999. He directed PW-11 Assistant Sub Inspector Maliram to make further inquiries under Section 174 CrPC. The Assistant Sub Inspector, after recording the statements of Ramesh and other witnesses present there, gave report on 30.04.1999, on the basis of which First Information Report (Ex. P-11) was registered as Crime No. 63/99 relating to offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Station House Officer himself took up the investigation. Meanwhile, autopsy was conducted on 29.04.1999 on the dead body of Sheela by PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand of S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, at the request of the police, who found following ante mortem injuries: -
Raj Singh @ Raja vs State Of Haryana Tr.Sec.Ministy ... on 20 November, 2015
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 21.8.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 152-DB of 2004, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby said appeal has been dismissed affirming the conviction and sentence awarded against accused/appellant Raj Singh @ Raja, by Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1999/2003 under Sections 148, 302, 307, 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. Brief facts of the case are that PW-4 Bhale Ram (complainant) owned shops near bus stop of village Jagsi. In one of the shops liquor used to be sold, and the other shops were being used as tea stalls by the complainant’s son PW-10 Sanjay and nephew Rajesh (deceased). A vacant piece of land adjoining the shops was also used by the complainant for tethering the cattle in respect of which a civil litigation was going on between him and Daya Kishan Bairagi (one of the accused).
Brij Bihari Singh vs Bihar State Financial ... on 20 November, 2015
The appellant was working on the post of Assistant General Manager in the Bihar State Financial Corporation (in short, “the Corporation”). At the direction of State Government, vide letter dated 20th March, 1993, the Managing Director of the Corporation, who is the Disciplinary Authority, put the appellant under suspension and initiated disciplinary proceedings on the following charges:- “1. He recommended release of Rs. 4.33 lakhs to M/s. Koshi Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd., Supaul against purchased machines without deducting the stipulated promoter's margin money, which is evident from the fact that the promoter's margin money was deducted in totality at the time of subsequent release of Rs.7.80 lakhs to the concern on 19.12.90.
Prof. N.K.Ganguly vs Cbi New Delhi on 19 November, 2015
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl)………………Crl.M.P. No.9612 of 2015. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 27.05.2013 passed in Application Nos. 480 of 2013, 41206, 40718, 41006 and 41187 of 2012 and judgment and order by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated and order 07.10.2014 passed in Application No. 277KH of 2014 in Special Case No. 18 of 2012 by the learned Special Judge, whereby the High Court dismissed the applications filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”) to quash the criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 18 of 2012 as well as the summoning order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad. All the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
M/S. State Bank Of Patiala ... vs Commr.Of Income Tax,Patiala on 18 November, 2015
1. Leave granted in special leave petition (civil) nos. 13359 of 2015 and 13357 of 2015. 2. There are 25 appeals that have been posted for hearing before us. They are concerned primarily with interest that is received by various banks after bills of exchange have been discounted by them and a party defaults and hence has to pay compensation by way of interest as payment is made after the date stipulated in the bill of exchange. The precise question that arises before us is whether such payment of compensation to the said banks is “interest” liable to tax under the Interest Tax Act, 1974. 3. The facts in all the cases are similar. The bank makes purchases of bills of exchange from its customers and charges commission thereon for services rendered by it. The discounted bills so purchased are then presented to the parties concerned for realization. If on presentation the bill is realized within time, no charges are levied by the bank. In case the bills are not realized in time but the other party pays the value of the bill beyond the stipulated time, a certain amount in the form of interest is charged by the bank on a fixed percentage basis for every day of default. This amount is credited by the bank in its interest account.
B. Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 17 November, 2015
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 02.07.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos.398 and 399 of 2013 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the respondents herein and set aside the common order dated 13.09.2010 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 9527 and 9528 of 2006 by which the appellants’ writ petitions were allowed. 3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, which lie in a narrow compass, few relevant facts need mention infra. 4. Mr. B. Radhakrishnan and Mr. K. Padmaraj, - appellants herein were enlisted in the Police Department of the Coimbatore City Police Unit in the year 1976 and 1977 respectively as Grade-II Police Constables. One Eswaran and others were recruited between 1979 and 1982 in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion as Grade-II Police Constables, Category III. These persons were promoted to the post of Naik in the year 1985 and subsequently in the year 1987 to the post of Havaldar. At that time these persons were drawing higher pay than the appellants.
© 2012 District Court Bar Association - Thalassery. People behind the website


phone : 04902341278, Fax no 0490 2323537,