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.

Verhoeven, Marie-Emmanuelle vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 April, 2016
1. The writ petition is admitted and in the connected matter, special leave is granted. 2. The principal question for consideration is whether there is a binding extradition treaty in terms of Section 2(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962 between India and Chile. Our answer to this question is in the affirmative. 3. The subsidiary question, equally important, is assuming there is no binding extradition treaty between India and Chile, whether a requisition by Chile invoking the principle of reciprocity and the general principles of international law for extraditing the petitioner from India is maintainable. In our opinion, the general principles of international law do not debar the requisition. However, whether the petitioner ought to be extradited or not is a decision that the concerned Magistrate, before whom the extradition proceedings are pending, will need to take on the evidence and material before him.
Vls Finacne Ltd. & Anr vs Commissioner F Income Tax & Anr on 28 April, 2016
In this appeal, challenge is laid to that part of the judgment of High Court of Delhi dated 15th December, 2006 whereby High Court has held that the block assessment proceedings initiated by the respondent-Department against the appellants herein have not become time barred, by giving the respondents benefit of the period during which proceedings were pending in the High Court, in view of some interim orders passed in those proceedings which remained operative till the writ petition filed by the appellants were decided finally. Factual background leading to the present appeal is as under: Search and seizure took place in the business premises of the appellant companies on 22nd June, 1998 on the strength of warrant of autorization dated 19th June, 1998 which went upto in the morning hours of 23rd June, 1998. It was followed by further searches from time to time which went on till 5th August.
Sankalp Charitable Trust And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 April, 2016
(b) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” When the matter was heard on 27th April, 2016, the following order was passed by this Court : “Taken on board. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assured this Court that he will remove the office objections by tomorrow. At his request, Respondent No.4 is deleted from the array of parties. All the three respondents are represented by their respective counsel and they have assured this Court that they are ready and willing to hold NEET examination for admission to MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2016-17. As the counsel representing CBSE would like to take necessary instructions, hearing is adjourned for tomorrow. Proposed schedule of the examination to be held, shall be submitted in the Court tomorrow. The learned counsel shall also see that a responsible officer of the CBSE, who can take on the spot decision, remains present in the Court. List the matter tomorrow, i.e., 28th April, 2016 at 12.00 p.m.” The matter has been thereafter heard today. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for all the respondents that it is proposed to hold the examination in pursuance of Notifications dated 21st December, 2010 issued by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India ('DCI' for short).
Ashok Kumar Giri vs Govt. Of India And Ors on 27 April, 2016
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna, while taking note of the fact, namely, the number of vacancies which were sought to be filled up at the instance of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, took the view that based on the vacancies notified when the 3% reservation provided for under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Protection) Act, 1995, since it worked out to 0.27 post there was no scope to reserve any post under the said category. With that view, the Division Bench declined to grant any relief to the appellant to claim reservation as a disabled person falling under the definition of the said Act. At the time, when this special leave petition was moved before us, taking note of the legal position, namely, 3% reservation for the disabled persons can only be at the first instance ascertained based on the cadre strength and not based on the vacancies, while issuing notice, we directed the parties to examine the said legal position. In fact, subsequently, Mr. Kaul, himself, when he appeared on 16.12.2015, came forward to examine the legal position in the light of Three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind and Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 772.
Harijan Bhala Teja vs State Of Gujarat on 27 April, 2016
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008, passed by High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1986, whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by State of Gujarat, and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.12.1985 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1985, recording acquittal of Harijan Bhala Teja (appellant before this Court). The High Court has convicted the accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). By separate order dated 21.07.2008, after hearing on sentence, the High Court has sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs.100/-.
Itc Limited Gurgaon vs Commr.Of I.T(Tds) Delhi on 26 April, 2016
2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 11.5.2011. 3. The assessees are engaged in the business of owning, operating, and managing hotels. Surveys conducted at the business premises of the assessees allegedly revealed that the assessees had been paying tips to its employees but not deducting taxes thereon. 4. The Assessing Officer treated the receipt of the tips as income under the head “salary” in the hands of the various employees and held that the assessees were liable to deduct tax at source from such payments under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessees were treated by the Assessing Officers as assessees-in-default under Section 201(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officers in various assessment orders worked out the different amounts of tax to be paid by all the aforesaid assessees under Section 201(1), as also interest under Section 201 (1A) of the said Act for assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.
Amal Kumar Jha vs State Of Chhatisgarh & Anr on 26 April, 2016
Leave granted. The appeal arises out of the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur, thereby affirming the order dated 29.6.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, rejecting the application filed by the accused appellant for discharge on the ground of requirement of sanction to prosecute under section 197(1) Cr.P.C. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was in-charge of Patthalgaon Hospital, District Raigad where on 1.1.1995 L.T.D. operation of Runiabai was conducted by Dr. A.M. Gupta. Thereafter she was sent home. As Runiabai vomited Dr. A.M. Gupta was approached. He sent one Aklu Ram to administer some treatment. However on 2.2.1995 she was brought to the Primary Health Centre, Patthalgaon where she was admitted and died at 2 p.m. Her post mortem was conducted. After 25 days, First Information Report was lodged and ultimately Police filed chargesheet under section 304-A IPC on 16.10.1996 in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, as against appellant A.K. Jha, Dr. A.M. Gupta and Aklu Ram. Charges under section 304-A were framed as against Dr. A.M. Gupta and the appellant. Both of them filed an application for discharge under section 197 Cr.PC on the ground that sanction to prosecute was required and they could not be prosecuted without previous sanction. Vide order dated 27.6.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the application filed by Dr. A.M. Garg had been allowed. However, the application filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground that he was in-charge of the Primary Health Centre and he failed to provide Government jeep for shifting the patient Mrs. Runiabai to District Hospital, Raigad whereas the appellant himself travelled in the jeep to attend an official monthly meeting at Raigad which was District Headquarters. The Primary Health Centre did not have ambulance. Thus, negligence was attributed to the appellant for not providing the said vehicle for shifting the patient to District Hospital, Raigad. A revision was preferred against the rejection of prayer and thereafter a petition was filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, the same having been dismissed, the appellant is before us.
M.K.Indrajeet Sinhji Cotton ... vs Narmada Cotto Coop.Spg.Mills ... on 26 April, 2016
2. This appeal is preferred by a Company which has been refused permission to continue the suit filed by it before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the ground that the suit is not tenable because notice of its institution required by Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Co-operative Societies Act). 3. The appellant, a Private Limited Company entered into a lease agreement dated 1-10-1998. Under the agreement it took on lease the mill of the respondent Cooperative Society for a period of five years. Disputes having arisen, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent society on 26-4-2000 before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The appellant sought recovery of Rs.2,51,89,606.79/- (Rupees Two Crores, Fifty One Lakhs, Eighty Nine Thousand, Six Hundred Six and Paise Seven Nine only) with interest at the rate of 21% per annum.
Devinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab Through Cbi on 25 April, 2016
1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. In the appeals the question involved is whether in view of the provisions contained in section 6 of Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983 (as amended in 1989) (for short “the 1983 Act”) the prosecution or other legal proceedings relating to Police officers can be instituted without prior sanction of the Central Government. 3. The case set up by the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2003 is that they are the officers of the Punjab Police. At the relevant time they were entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of public order and peace in the State of Punjab. It is averred by the appellants that, in the early 1980s, there was a sudden spurt in the terrorist activities, massive killings at the hands of terrorists, looting, extortions, kidnapping, resulting into total collapse of the civil administration. More than 25,000 civilians, 1800 men in uniform and their relatives had been killed at the hands of the terrorists resulting into migration of civil population in the border districts of Amritsar, Ferozpur and Gurdaspur. District Amritsar was bifurcated into three police districts for the purpose of better administration, namely Amritsar, Taran Taran and Majitha. The present cases arise from police district Taran Taran which is the closest police district to Pakistan.
Paramjit Kaur vs Balkar Singh And Anr on 25 April, 2016
………………………J. (V. Gopala Gowda) New Delhi; ………………………J. April 25, 2016. (Arun Mishra) ITEM NO.1B-For Order COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 228/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/07/2011 in CRR No. 1390/2009 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) PARAMJIT KAUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS BALKAR SINGH AND ANR Respondent(s) Date : 25/04/2016 This petition was called on for pronouncement of ORDER today.
Orissa State Housing Board vs Indira English Medium School & Ors on 25 April, 2016
1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The Orissa State Housing Board is before this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 01.10.2013 in Writ Petition (C) No. 14973 of 2012. The High Court has directed the Housing Board to allot an extent of 1.55 acres of land to the respondent-School Management. 4. During the pendency of these appeals before us, we had asked the State of Orissa to ascertain whether the State would be in a position to allot an alternate site for the school. Mr. P. N. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Orissa, on instruction, has submitted that the State is in a position to identify an alternate land for the purpose of allotment to the school. He has further submitted that the alternate land, now pointed out by the State in consultation with the Orissa State Housing Board, can be allotted to the respondent-School Management in case the school management is in a position to produce the affiliation from an appropriate authority.
Visvesvaraya Tech.University vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 2016
1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant – University, namely, Visvesvraya Technological University (VTU) has been constituted under the Visveswaraiah Technological University Act, 1994 (for short “VTU Act”). It discharges functions earlier performed by the Department of Technical Education, Government of Karnataka. The University exercises control over all Government and Private Engineering Colleges within Karnataka. 3. For the Assessment Years 2004-2005 to 2009-2010 notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) were issued to the appellant – University – Assessee. Eventually returns were filed for the Assessment Years in question declaring 'Nil' income and claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. The aforesaid claim of exemption was negatived by the Assessing Officer who proceeded to make the assessments. The same view has been taken by all the Authorities under the Act and also by the High Court in the order under challenge in the present proceedings.
Axis Bank vs Sbs Organics Pvt. Ltd & Anr on 22 April, 2016
Leave granted. An appeal under Section 18 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’) before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRAT’) can be entertained only if the borrower deposits fifty per cent of the amount in terms of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRT’) under Section 17 of the Act or fifty per cent of the amount due from the borrower as claimed by the secured creditor, whichever is less. The Appellate Tribunal may reduce the amount to twenty five per cent. What is the fate of such deposit on the disposal of the appeal is the question arising for consideration in this case.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation vs M/S Euro Apex B.V on 22 April, 2016
These appeals are directed against the order dated 29.9.2014 in Execution Application No.643 of 2013 in Award dated 23.12.2011 with Chamber Summons No.832 of 2014. To briefly note the facts, there was a Licence Agreement between the appellant and the respondent dated 22.2.1993 which provided for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the Dutch Arbitration Institute. The said agreement was sought to be terminated by a notice by the respondent on 12.3.2007. The termination was to take effect from 23.02.2008. The dispute went before the Arbitral Tribunal. On 11.6.2008, the appellant filed an application for registration of Patent Nos.10-0865115 and 100909490 in the United States as well as in India. In the arbitral proceedings, a Partial Final Award (for short, PFA) came to be passed by the Arbitral Trinunal on 23.12.2011. We are presently concerned with the Indian Patents in which the appellant's rights and interest were involved, namely, Patent Nos. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008. The relevant part of the award (viz) paragraphs 7 and 9, of the PFA reads as under:-
Chaman & Anr vs State Of Uttrakhand on 19 April, 2016
The appeals assail the judgment and order dated 11.6.2012, rendered by the High Court of Uttrakhand, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2004, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302,364 r/w 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- each and for the offence under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each. Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine has also been awarded. The trial court had convicted and sentenced the appellants in identical terms.
Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. Ltd on 19 April, 2016
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. No. 4404 of 2010 refusing to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 4. The appellant was prosecuted by the respondent under Sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Section 120(b) of the IPC. The appellant is a Director in Devi Polymers Private Limited, Chennai which is a leader in Polyester Moulding Compound (PMC), Sheet Moulding Compound (SMC) and Dough Moulding Compound (DMCO) in India.
Messer Holdings Ltd vs Shyam Madanmohan Ruia & Ors on 19 April, 2016
1. Messer Griesham GmbH, a German Company (hereinafter referred to as “MGG”) entered into a Share Purchase and Cooperation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as AGREEMENT-1) with the shareholders of an Indian company called Goyal Gases Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “GGL”) on 12.5.1995. By virtue of the said agreement, MGG purchased 30% of equity shares of GGL. Subsequently, MGG increased its shareholding in GGL to 49%. Clause 9 of the AGREEMENT-1 reads: “ 9. NON-COMPETITION CLAUSE GGL and all Goyal Group companies will cooperate in the Indian market with right to first refusal basis/with MGG and will not for the duration of this cooperation support in any way directly or indirectly - the activities of MGG’s competitors with regard to gas business. MGG will give written information to GGL about every business opportunity it plans to take in the Indian market in regard to industrial gases and related business and GGL may decide if it wants to participate in it (right of first refusal). In case GGL does not within a period of two months after receiving MGG’s notice declare in writing that it is willing and able to participate in the planned business, MGG is free to proceed with this business on its own. However, MGG will give due consideration to the interest of GGL being its group company. Such new business which MGG undertakes should be business of gas supply of few major dedicated customers only and not to general market supply.”
Essar Steel Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 April, 2016
The present appeals arise out of the impugned common final judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4468 of 2008 etc. by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, wherein by a majority of 2:1, a Three Judge bench upheld the validity of the impugned policy decision dated 06.03.2007 on the ground that the Union of India is competent to take the policy decision and further it has held that it is either arbitrary, unjust or violative of the fundamental rights of the appellants herein. Since the facts in all these appeals raise the same issue for our consideration, for the sake of brevity, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No.4610 of 2009. The necessary relevant facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder:
Rajesh Verma vs Ashwani Kumar Khanna on 19 April, 2016
1) Delay in filing special leave petition is condoned. Leave granted. 2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 03.12.2015 and 19.02.2016 in Arbitration Petition No. 434 of 2015 and I.A. No. 754 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition No. 434 of 2015 respectively whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed Arbitration Petition No. 434 of 2015 and dismissed I.A. No. 754 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition No. 434 of 2015 seeking change of the named arbitrator. 3) In order to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal, it is necessary to state few relevant facts. 4) The appellant is an owner/landlord of the shop measuring 153.58 sq. feet situated at 1729, Gali No. 5, Govind Puri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 whereas the respondent was the appellant's tenant of the shop in question at a monthly rent of Rs.175/- since July 1977.
M/S Shilpa Shares And Securities & ... vs The National Co-Operative Bank ... on 19 April, 2016
1. Leave granted. 2. The case before us has a chequered history involving so many litigations. The appellants availed a loan from the first respondent - Bank. The loan was not serviced and hence, the Bank took steps to recover the dues by proceeding against the secured assets of the appellants. In the meanwhile, the Reserve Bank of India announced two One-Time Settlement Schemes, one in the year 2004 and the other in the year 2006. 3. According to the appellants, when the matter was under consideration before the Bank, the auction was conducted on 11.02.2008. However, according to the respondents, the auction was conducted after the rejection of the proposal for One-Time Settlement.
© 2012 District Court Bar Association - Thalassery. People behind the website


phone : 04902341278, Fax no 0490 2323537,