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.

Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd vs Synergy Ispat Pvt Ltd on 12 September, 2014
Chelameswar, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th May 2014 of the High Court of Calcutta in A.P.O.T. No.460/2012, the respondent therein filed this appeal. 3. The impugned order is a reversing order in appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2012 of single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in A.P. No.245/2012 by which the learned single Judge rejected an application filed under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 holding that the appellant was not entitled to interim injunction in aid of his claim for specific performance of an agreement to sell iron ore. 4. The factual background of the case is as follows. 5. The appellant herein secured a mining lease originally from the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) in the year 1996. However, the appellant could not secure the necessary approval under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Therefore, the mining operation had to be kept under suspension. 6. Sometime in the year 2005-2006, at the instance of the respondent herein, the appel
C.P. John vs Babu M. Palissery & Ors on 11 September, 2014
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum dated 02.12.2011 passed in Election Petition No.1 of 2011 and I.A. No. 3 of 2011. By the impugned judgment, the High Court, while allowing I.A. No. 3 of 2011 simultaneously dismissed Election Petition No.1 of 2011 filed by the Appellant challenging the successful election of the First Respondent to 062 Kunnamkulam Constituency in the general election held on 13.04.2011, as a candidate of Communist Party of India (Marxist) (hereinafter called “CPI (M)�), which is a constituent of the Left Democratic Front (hereinafter called “LDF�). Such a decision of the Election Petition was at the threshold under Sections 83(1) and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called “the Act�) read with Rule 11 of Order 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the Appellant was a candidate of the Communist Marxist Party (hereinafter called “CMP�), which was a constituent of United Democratic Front (hereinafter called “UDF�). The Second Respondent was also a candidate in the said electi
Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Purshottam V.Murjani And Ors on 10 September, 2014
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred against the Judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “NCDRC�) dated 2nd November, 2006 in F.A. Nos.464/2002 and 61 to 77 of 2004 by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (for short “the Corporation�), the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (for short “the Insurance Company�) and the proprietor of Ripple Aqua Sports (hereinafter referred to as “the Contractor�) against the award of compensation for the death of 22 persons by drowning in Sursagar Lake at Vadodara while riding the boat, on account of negligence in plying the boat.
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential ... vs State Of T.Nadu & Ors on 10 September, 2014
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. These civil appeals have been heard together because they involve common questions of law and fact and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Whereas in Civil Appeal No.8700 of 2013, filed by an Association of Residents of a particular locality, the challenge is to the order of Government of Tamil Nadu bearing G.O. No.122 dated 14.07.1998 containing a scheme for development of a proposed canal by name Madhavaram Left Flank Water Surplus Course, on the ground that the scheme is misconceived and technically flawed which shall lead to unnecessary acquisition of land and building belonging to the residents of the affected area, the other Civil Appeals contain specific challenge to proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) undertaken by the Tamil Nadu State Government for the purpose of implementation of the said scheme covered by G.O. No.122 relating to the
M.P. State Legal Service ... vs Prateek Jain And Anr on 10 September, 2014
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, the appellant herein, has filed the instant appeal challenging the propriety of orders dated February 27, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 1519 of 2012, which was filed by one Rakesh Kumar Jain (respondent No.2 herein) impleading Prateek Jain (respondent No.1 herein) as the sole respondent. Essentially the lis was between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against respondent No.2. Matter reached before the Additional Sessions Judge in the form of criminal appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the matter was settled between the parties. On their application, the matter was referred to Mega Lok Adalat. However, the concerned Presiding Officer in the Lok Adalat did not give his im
S.Balachandran vs M/S Ramaniyam Real Estates Ltd on 10 September, 2014
R.F. Nariman, J. 1. This matter has come before a three Judge Bench by an order of reference of a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court dated 7th April, 2010. The referral order reads thus: “In this appeal, the question that arises for decision is which Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short 'the Act'). 2. Mr. Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants cited the judgments in the case of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd. And Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 540, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Annapurna Construction (2008) 6 SCC 732, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. H.P. Biswas and Company (2008) 6 SCC 740 and Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Krishna Travel Agency (2008) 6 SCC 741 in support of his submission that it is only the Principal Civil Court, as def
State Of M.P vs Deepak & Ors on 10 September, 2014
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. As counsel for both the parties expressed their willingness to argue the matter finally at this stage, we heard the appeal finally. This appeal is preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the High Court in the petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The said petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code�) for compounding/quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 171/13 under Section 307/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Vidisha (M.P.) and consequent criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 582 of 2013 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha. The FIR was registered at the instance of Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). The complainant (respondent No.3), Deepak Ghenghat s/o Laxminarayan Ghenghat, had alleged that on 11.3.2013 at about 9.45 p.m., while
Sangili @ Sanganathan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. Insp.Of ... on 10 September, 2014
Chelameswar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 6th January 2010 of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.506 of 2004. 2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10000/- under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC�) awarded by the Sessions Court, Madurai in Sessions Case No.490 of 2003. 3. The deceased Muthuramaligam was a high school going child studying Plus-Two. PWs 1 and 2 are his parents. PW-5 Ramathilaga another young girl was also a student of the same school where the deceased was studying. The appellant herein was working for the father of PW-5. 4. According to the case of the prosecution, on 12.6.2002 at about 5.15 p.m., there was a phone call from the appellant herein to the deceased which was initially picked up by PW-1. According to PW-1 the caller identified himself by his name (same as the appellant). After some conversation with the caller the deceased went out by bicycle informing his parents that he would return soon. Unfortunately, he never ret
Union Of India & Anr vs Jai Kishun Singh(D) Thr. Lrs. ... on 10 September, 2014
ARUN MISHRA, J. In the case in hand, the Court is required to adjudicate upon the issue whether Freedom Fighter pension had been undeservingly extended to respondent No.1 inspite of the fact that he did not participate in freedom struggle as he was a child of 7 to 8 years in the year 1942. Initially, original respondent No.1’s case for granting such pension was declined by the appellant vide letter dated 19.06.1995. However, original respondent No.1 was successful in getting released pension on second attempt and it was ordered to be released on 26.12.1997 with retrospective effect from 28.07.1981. The matter did not set at rest at that. The High Court at Patna directed suo motu inquiry in the rampant complaints that large persons in the State of Bihar were availing such benefits inspite of not having participated in freedom struggle as contemplated under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short “the Scheme�). The Deputy Collector conducted inquiry into the matter and recorded evidence. He found that claim of the deceased respondent No.1 was not genuine. On that basis, the Union of India issued show-cause notice
State Of Rajasthan vs Chandagiram & Ors on 9 September, 2014
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. This appeal, at the instance of the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench dated 08.02.2007 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2002. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Respondents-accused by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.3/2001 (108/2000) vide judgment dated 10.07.2002. The trial Court found the Respondents-accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 34, IPC for which they were sentenced to life imprisonment, apart from imposing a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment apart from fine of Rs.200/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days each. The case of the prosecution as projected before the trial Court was that on 12.03.2000, at around 9 p.m., the deceased Surender was conversing with his wife Choti (PW-1) and children Kumari Sarita (PW-3) and Vikram (PW-15) in their house. At that moment, the four
Union Of India vs Raj Kumar Baghal ... on 9 September, 2014
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted in SLPs. 2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a group of matters involving the issue of determination of compensation for the land acquired by the appellant-Union of India in two sets of acquisition. 2. One of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act�), in question, was issued on 14th March, 1989 to acquire 72.9375 acres of land in villages Bir Kheri Gujran, District Patiala, for development of military cantonment at Patiala in Punjab. The Collector vide award dated 13th August, 1991,
Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 September, 2014
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. These petitions seek directions to the Government of India to intervene and expedite release of Indian Seamen held hostages by the Somalian Pirates in the international waters on 29th March, 2010, 2nd March, 2012 and 10th May, 2012 and to frame anti-piracy guidelines. Writ Petition (C) No. 536/2012 described as PIL, is claimed to be by way of legal aid to the captivated seamen at the instance of relatives of the victims, while Writ Petition (C) No. 26/2014, also described as PIL, has been filed by the wife of one of the captivated seamen. Thus, though described as PIL, both the petitions seek enforcement of rights of individual seamen who are held hostages at high sea. 2. Case of the petitioner is that three merchant vessels have been hijacked in the high sea and out of the crew members held captive by the pirates, eight persons continued to be detained by them. It is the duty of the Governm
Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Tamilnadu And Ors on 8 September, 2014
PRAFULLA C.PANT,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The question before us in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of High Court has erred in law in setting aside the order of learned Single Judge quashing the First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) on the basis of the compromise and settlement between the complainant and the appellant. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an International Numismatic Company which has operations in over sixty countries. It is pleaded that it conducts its business with necessary licence. The multi level marketing through direct selling of products is being adopted by the Company in the interest of the consumers by eliminating the middleman and rewarding the consumer by reducing the prices. The appellant-company has over sixteen thousand members/ consumers in and around the city of Chennai alone. A complaint was made in the year 2003 by Respondent No.7 against the appellant-company alleging non-compliance of issuance of numismatic gold coin on receipt of Rs.16,800/- from wife of Respondent No.7 as per the promise made by
Leela Rajagopal & Ors vs Kamala Menon Cochran & Ors on 8 September, 2014
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. All the three appeals being directed against the common judgment and order of the High Court dated 18.08.2009 were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this order. 2. In the present appeals, which challenge a judgment of reversal passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, determination of what is essentially a question of fact confronts this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The said question is with regard to the validity and legality of a Will dated 11.1.1982 executed by one K.P. Janaki Amma, the mother of the appellants and the first respondent. The learned Trial Judge by his order dated 23.01.2001 dismissed the probate proceedings instituted by the first respondent (later converted into a Suit being T.O.S. No. 16 of 1994) by holding that the execution of the Will dated 11.1.1982 is surrounded by a host of suspicious circumstances rendering the same legally unacceptable. The aforesaid view of the learned Trial Judge of the High Court havin
Telikicherla Sesibhushan (Dead) ... vs Kalli Raja Rao (D) By Lrs.& Ors on 8 September, 2014
PRAFULLA C.PANT,J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 15th June, 2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeal Suit Nos.2652 and 2052 of 1996. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent- Kalli Raja Rao (since dead) agreed to sell the property measuring an area of Ac.19.96 cents situated at Pulla village of Eluru Taluk for an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) under the agreement of sale ( Ex.A/1) dated 10th May, 1980. The said agreement discloses that respondent- Kalli Raja Rao had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) from the State Bank of India, Eluru Branch, in the year 1969 and he could not repay the loan, as such, he intended to sell his land, and the present appellant- Telikicherla Sesibhushan agreed to repay the loan amount with interest due from Kalli Raja Rao, to the Bank. It appears that the appellant though made certain payments but failed to repay the entire loan amount with interest. Consequently, the Bank instituted a
K.K.Dixit & Ors vs Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors on 5 September, 2014
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. Leave granted. These appeals are further additions to the long list of service matters decided by High Courts and this Court resolving disputes between “Diploma Holder� and “Degree Holder� Engineers in the matter of eligibility for further promotion. All the appellants belonged to the category of degree holder engineers appointed as Project Engineers (Junior) in the service of Rajasthan Housing Board (for sake of brevity referred to as ‘the Board’). The contesting respondents also held the same post but initially only as diploma holder who later acquired qualification of AMIE which is admittedly equivalent to degree in Engineering. Since all the appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench and the facts as well as issues of law are common, all the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. At the outset, two important issues raised by way of questions of law in these appeals need to be noticed so
M/S. Harsha Constructions vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 September, 2014
1 2 3 ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 9th September, 2005 delivered by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in CMA No.476 of 2005, this appeal has been filed by M/s Harsha Constructions, a contractor, against Union of India and its authorities. Hereinafter, the appellant has been described as a 'Contractor'. 2. The Union of India had entered into a contract for construction of a road bridge at a level crossing and in the said contract there was a clause with regard to arbitration. The issue with which we are concerned in the instant case, in a nutshell, is as under:- “When in a contract of arbitration, certain disputes are expressly “excepted�, whether the Arbitrator can arbitrate on such excepted issues and what are the consequences if the Arbitrator decides such issues?� 3. For the purpose of considering the issue, in our opinion, certain clauses incorporated in the contract are relevant and those clauses are reproduced hereinbelow :- “Clause 39. Any i
Ntpc Kahalagaon & Ors vs Nakul Das & Ors on 5 September, 2014
A.K. SIKRI, J. Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) no. 31026 of 2011 Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 33518-33519 of 2011 Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 33772 of 2013 Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 33784 of 2013 Leave granted. 2. Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31026 of 2011 is treated as lead case and the background facts culled therefrom are briefly mentioned below : The appellant in this case is National Thermal Power Corporation, Kahalagaon (hereinafter referred to as the 'NTPC'). It established
Pargan Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 September, 2014
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4071 of 2013. 2. By these appeals, the two appellant challenge the veracity of the judgment of the High Court dated 13.12.2012 whereby the High Court has dismissed their appeals which were preferred against the judgment dated 25.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, Punjab. The Sessions Judge had, by the aforesaid judgment, convicted the appellants under Section 302, 397 as well as Section 307 IPC read wit
U.P. Hindi Sahittya Sammelan vs State Of U P on 4 September, 2014
R.M. LODHA, CJI. On 12.11.1951, the Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act, 1951 (U.P. Act No.XXVI of 1951) (for short, ‘1951 Act’) was published in Gazette Extraordinary and came into force. 1951 Act was passed in Hindi by the U.P. Legislative Assembly on 27.09.1951 and by the U.P Legislative Council on 29.09.1951. It received the assent of the Governor on 05.11.1951. 1951 Act is enacted by the State Legislature to provide for adoption of Hindi as the language to be used for the official purposes and other matters of the State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. Section 2 of the 1951 Act reads as under: 2. Hindi to be official language of the State.—Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 346 and 347 of the Constitution, Hindi in Devnagri script shall, with effect from such date, as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, be the language used in respect of the following :— (a) (i) ordinances promulgated under Article 213 of the Constitution. (ii) orders, rules regulations and bye-laws issued
© 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