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.

Bakshi Security And Personnel ... vs Devkishan Computed Pvt Ltd And Ors on 26 July, 2016
2. On 20.11.2014, the Commissioner of Transport, Government of Gujarat, floated a tender seeking bids for services inter alia of supervisors, computer programmers, data entry operators, and electrician staff at 11 RTO check-posts. A few material clauses of the tender are set out hereinbelow:- “2.5.5 Commercials The Commercial Bids should strictly conform to the formats provided in Annexure 2 of this tender document. 2.5.6 Fixed Price Prices quoted by the Bidder shall be fixed and no variation will be allowed under any circumstances during the entire period of the project. No open-ended Bid shall be entertained and the same is liable to be rejected straightaway.
Baby @ Sebastian & Anr vs Circle Inspector Of Police ... on 26 July, 2016
This criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2009 in Crl. Appeal No. 1898 of 2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby it has allowed the said criminal appeal filed by the respondent herein, by setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, in Sessions Case No.461 of 2001. The High Court convicted both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each.
Devraj vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2016
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2013 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 2008. The First Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.396 of 2006 had convicted the appellant-Devraj and Dinda @ Deenanath under Section 302 and 201 IPC and awarded imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the charge levelled under Section 302 IPC and RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the charge under Section 201 IPC. Four other accused were acquitted by the First Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2008 although acquitted the accused Dinda @ Deenanath, it confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of Devraj under Section 201 IPC.
Sukh Ram vs State Of H.P on 25 July, 2016
Present batch of appeals arise out of three separate judgments of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeals No. 418 of 2007, 419 of 2007 and 420 of 2007 in and by which the High Court reversed the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed six months imprisonment. 2. Common facts arising out of these criminal appeals are as follows:- During the relevant point of time i.e. 1983-1986, there was a government scheme for providing loans at the cheaper interest rates to poor persons living below the poverty line to enable them to purchase sheeps, buffalos, horses and for running small businesses and for development of land etc. Upon recommendation of the Block Development Officer (BDO), the bank disbursed these loans to the beneficiaries. Appellant-Sukh Ram was a Gram Sewak, Navgaon under Arki Sub-Division during said period, 1983 to 1986.
Union Of India & Anr vs Premco - Dkspl (Jv) & Ors on 25 July, 2016
The appellants have assailed the legality and correctness of final order dated 25.02.2014 passed in Arbitration Petition No.14 of 2013 by an Hon’ble Judge of Gauhati High Court designated by the Chief Justice of that Court to decide respondents’ applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). By the impugned order the designated Judge allowed the application under Section 11 of the Act and appointed a former Judge of that Court as the Arbitrator after holding that the appellants had forfeited their right to appoint railway officers as arbitrators in terms of clause 64(3)(a)(ii) of the agreement.
Etoile Creations vs Sarl Dnset Deco on 25 July, 2016
In this petition under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner prays for the appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudication of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to ‘Buyers Agreement’ dated 18.10.2012 executed between them. 2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as under:- Petitioner is a proprietorship firm having its registered office at C-291, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of products relating to home furnishing and upholstery etc., exclusively for the respondent since 2000. The respondent-SARL DANSET DECO is a concern having its office at 240 Rue De La Lys 59250, Halluin, France which is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of the product relating to home furnishing and upholstery and is the buyer of the products manufactured by the petitioner. Accordingly, a ‘Buyers Agreement’ was executed on 18.10.2012 at New Delhi between the petitioner and the respondent. As per the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner has been selling/supplying its aforesaid products and the respondent has been buying/purchasing the products for resale/sale in the territory of France. There was a long business relationship since 2000, even prior to execution of the agreement and the petitioner was regularly supplying the products to the respondent. At the time of execution of the aforesaid agreement, it was acknowledged that the respondent owes a total amount of Euro 367814.80 as the outstanding amount. The details of the outstanding dues have been mentioned in Schedule-I of the ‘Buyers Agreement’. The petitioner has alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the ‘Buyers Agreement’ dated 18.10.2012, the respondent did not release the said outstanding amount within seven days of the agreement. Despite numerous reminders for the payment of dues through e-mails, SMS messages exchanged between the parties during November 2012 to April 2013 and subsequent legal notices sent to the respondent, the respondent failed to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner.
Ranveer Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. & Ors on 22 July, 2016
1. This appeal arising out of special leave has been preferred by the original writ petitioner whose land was acquired by the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of Land Acquisitions Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) on the basis of an agreement for compensation dated 27.2.2003 followed by instant payment of such compensation. The appellant subsequently claimed interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date 15.2.2001 when admittedly the possession of the land was taken over by the State Authorities and till 27.2.2003, the date of payment. The claim was rejected by the concerned District Magistrate of Gautam Budh Nagar vide an order dated 6.8.2005 passed pursuant to order of High Court dated 12.04.2005 in appellant’s earlier writ petition No.38951 of 2002. That claim again made through subsequent writ petition bearing No. 60992 of 2005 has been rejected on merits by the judgment and order under appeal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 22.5.2014.
Bunga Daniel Babu vs M/S Sri Vasudeva Constructions & ... on 22 July, 2016
The assail in the present appeal, by special leave, is to the judgement and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short “the National Commission”) in Revision Petition No. 258 of 2013 whereby the said Commission has approved the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad which had reversed the view of the District Consumer Forum that the complainant is a “consumer” within the definition under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, “the Act”) as the agreement of the appellant with the respondents was not a joint venture. The District Forum had arrived at the said decision on the basis of legal principles stated in Faqir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and anr.[1]. The State Commission had opined that the claim of the appellant was not adjudicable as the complaint could not be entertained under the Act inasmuch as the parties had entered into an agreement for construction and sharing flats which had the colour of commercial purpose. Thus, the eventual conclusion that the State Commission reached was that the complainant was not a consumer under the Act. The said conclusion has been given the stamp of affirmance by the National Commission.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Marico Industries Ltd on 22 July, 2016
In this appeal, by special leave, the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries have called in question the legal acceptability of the judgment and order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in W.P. No. 1198 of 2004 whereby the order dated 05.01.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax in Review case No.80/03/Ind/Entry Tax imposing entry tax on the products, namely, Mediker and Starch (Revive) after declining to entertain the stance of the assessee that “Mediker” being a drug Starch (Revive) being not a chemical, are not liable to levy of entry tax under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act, 1976, (for short “the E.T. Act”), has been dislodged and both the products have been held not to be within the ambit of entry tax.
Amin Merchant vs Chairman Cen.Board Of Exc.& Rev.& ... on 22 July, 2016
1. These appeals, by special leave, have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2011 in Writ Petition No.1761 of 2009 and order dated 24.11.2011 in Review Petition No.24 of 2011 in Writ Petition No.1761 of 2009 respectively, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by which the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein and also dismissed the Review Petition by holding that no error apparent on record has been made out. 2. The facts leading to these appeals, in brief, are that the appellant imported eight consignments of goods falling under Tariff Sub- Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff, namely, “Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages” during the financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The customs authorities assessed the goods imported provisionally and subjected them to a prescribed rate of duty of Rs.300/- per liter or 400% whichever is higher specified in respect of Sub-Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff for 1993-94 and 1994-
The Energy And Resources ... vs Suhrid Sudarshan Shah & Ors on 22 July, 2016
Leave granted. 2. Respondent No.1 (Suhrid Sudarshan Shah) had filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in the nature of public interest litigation against the State of Uttarakhand and the Director of Horticulture and Food Processing, to question the allotment of orchards belonging to the State on lease for a period of 25 years to private parties without following auction process. Reliefs claimed in the said Writ Petition (PIL) No.600 (M/B) of 2003 read thus: PRAYER It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this petition and issue:-
Santosh Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 22 July, 2016
2 The grievance of the petitioner is that the present education system does not inculcate the true purpose of education, which is to produce a good human being. The State, in the submission of the petitioner, is under a constitutional obligation to endeavour to provide educational facilities which inculcate moral values in the course of primary and secondary education. It has been urged that the course curriculum prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (“CBSE”) and the National Policy on Education do not recognise a sufficient status for “moral education”. In the submission of the petitioner, the failure to include moral science as a compulsory subject violates Article 25 of the Constitution which recognises the freedom of conscience and the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate religion. This in the submission militates against the fundamental duties contained in Article 51A(f) of the Constitution. Impressed by the need to protect the moral fibre of the nation, the petitioner seeks a mandamus for the inclusion of moral science as a compulsory subject in the syllabus of school education from classes I to XII “in order to inculcate moral values and nurture national character in the national interest”.
Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016
1. The cases have been referred to for resolving the conflict of opinion in the various decisions of Division Benches of this Court as noticed by this Court in Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 748. The Court has considered the cleavage of opinion in various decisions on the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case. A Division Bench of this Court has expressed the opinion on merits while referring the matter as to the various principles to be borne in mind before granting relief to an aggrieved party. Following is the relevant observation made by a Division Bench of this Court :
G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy vs State Transport Authority & Ors on 19 July, 2016
We heard the arguments of Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the appellant in the C.A.No.3606/2003, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel for the appellant in C.A.No.4480/1998, Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned senior counsel for the appellant in C.A.Nos.7195-7197/2001, Mr. Amit Singh Chaddha, learned senior counsel for the appellant in C.A.3853/2003 and Mr. Raju Rammachandran, learned senior counsel for the respondent(s) in C.A.No.4480/1998. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel made his leading submissions, followed by Ms.Suri and Mr. Chaddha as well as Mr. Mariarputham, learned senior counsels for the appellants, while Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel addressed arguments on behalf of the respondents in these appeals.
Muthuramalingam & Ors vs State Rep.By Insp.Of Police on 19 July, 2016
A Bench comprising three-Judges of this Court has referred to us the following short but interesting question: “Whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict on being found guilty of a series of murders for which he has been tried in a single trial?.” The question arises in the following circumstances: 3. The appellants were tried for several offences including an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) for several murders allegedly committed by them in a single incident. They were found guilty and sentenced to suffer varying sentences, including a sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders committed by them. What is important is that the sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders was directed to run consecutively. The result was that the appellants were to undergo consecutive life sentences ranging between two to eight such sentences depending upon the number of murders committed by them. Criminal appeals preferred against the conviction and the award of consecutive life sentences having failed, the appellants have filed the present appeals to assail the judgments and orders passed by the courts below.
Pragati Mahila Samaj & Anr vs Arun S/O Laxman Zurmure & Ors on 19 July, 2016
1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2374 of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein and set aside the order dated 05.08.1998 passed by the College Tribunal, Nagpur University, Nagpur in Appeal No. N-10 of 1998 and quashed the termination order dated 31.03.1998 issued by appellant No.1 herein by which the services of the respondent No. 1 had been terminated. The High Court further directed the concerned authorities to reinstate the respondent No.1 on the post of Lecturer but without payment of any back wages to him.
Board Of Control For Cricket vs Cricket Aasociation Of Bihar & Ors on 18 July, 2016
1. “Change” it is famously said is all that is constant in the world. And yet the world hates change, no matter, it is only change that has brought progress for mankind. Statesmen, Scholars and Scientists have spoken for change and eulogised its significance. For instance Charles Darwin has spoken of ‘change’ in the context of his theory of evolution and declared “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Benjamin Franklin, put it more pithily when he said “When you’re finished changing, you’re finished”. Albert Einstein spoke of change when he said “The world as we have created is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” The truth is that resistance to change stems partly from people getting used to status quo and partly because any change is perceived to affect their vested interest in terms of loss of ego, status, power or resources. This is true particularly when the suggested change is structural or organizational which involves some threat, real or perceived, of personal loss to those involved. No wonder, therefore, that the portents of change which the recommendations made by the Committee appointed by this Court symbolizes are encountering stiff resistance from several quarters interested in continuance of the status quo. The fact that the recommendations for change come from a body whose objectivity, fairness, sense of justice, equity and understanding of the problems that are crying for a solution are beyond any doubt or suspicion has made little or no difference to those opposing the recommendation.
S Shivraj Reddy Died Through His ... vs S Raghuraj Reddy And Anr on 18 July, 2016
1. Leave granted. 2. The whole dispute pertains to the partition of `A' Schedule residential property. The IInd Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide order dated 18.03.2014, ordered the said property to be sold in public auction. That was challenged by the appellants herein, before the High Court. 3. The contention is that being a family property, in terms of the mandate under the Partition Act, 1893, the attempt should be made to have the property settled amongst the members of the family. The High Court gave one opportunity to have the property sold in auction among the parties to the suit. It appears that the attempt failed. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a further direction to conduct public auction as directed in the order passed by the Trial Court.
R.M Dhariwal 100% Eou vs U.O.I & Ors on 18 July, 2016
1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers: (i) Issue writ of mandamus that the exemption contained under Rule-2 of Plastic Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 must be available to the Petitioner to export its Pan Masala, Gutkha and tobacco in multilayered plastic sachet and also in other packages containing plastic. (ii) Issue writ of Certiorari or any order, writ or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Rules 5(d) and 5(g) contained in Plastic Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 as amended vide notification dated 02.07.2011; and/or (iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rules 5(d) and 5(g) of the Plastic Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and also ultra vires the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; and
M/S Harsh International & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 July, 2016
1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers: (i) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents that the exemption to carry bags as contained under Rule-2 of Plastic Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 must be available to the Petitioners also to manufacture exclusively for export its product filter Khaini in plastic packaging or read down the provision contained under Rules 2 and 5 accordingly; and/or (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to prohibit the petitioners' 100% export oriented unit located in the Noida Special Economic Zone from manufacturing its product filter Khaini in plastic packaging meant exclusively for exports purposes.
© 2012 District Court Bar Association - Thalassery. People behind the website


phone : 04902341278, Fax no 0490 2323537,