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.

Periyasami vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police on 11 April, 2014
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. The present appeals filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (“the TADA”) are directed against the judgment and order dated 27/06/2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Designated Judge under the TADA, for Tiruchirapalli in Calendar Case No.45 of 1995 in Crime No.307 of 1992 of Vridhachalam Railway Police Station. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2013 is Senthilkumar @ Kumar (‘A1-Senthilkumar’ for convenience). The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2012 is Periyasami (‘A2-Periyasami’ for convenience). 2. According to the prosecution, on 24/10/1992, PW-10 Ramasamy was driving Quilon Express (Train No.6105). When the train reached near Maruvathur Peria Odai Bridge No.276, he noticed some object over the railw
Dharam Deo Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 11 April, 2014
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We are, in this case, concerned with the gruesome murder of a 22 year old girl by name Diana Clare Routley (hereinafter referred to as “Diana”), a New Zealander, for which the trial Court awarded death sentence to the appellant, which was affirmed by the High Court. 2. Diana came to India as a visitor in the year 1997. After visiting Agra, she reached Varanasi on 7.8.1997 and stayed in room no. 103 of the Old Vishnu Guest House, Varanasi. She left the guest house on 10.8.1997 at about 7.00 a.m. for Darjeeling by train from Varanasi Cantt. Railway Station. Later, she was found missing and her father Allan Jack Routley, having got no information about his daughter, informed the authorities about the missing of Diana. Raghvendra Singh, SHO, Police Station, Laksa, along with a team of police officials, made inquiries, but she could not be traced. Later, it was revealed that one Dharam Deo Yadav, a tourist guide, accused herein, had some contacts with Diana and the police team then submitted its report to the Superintendant of Police (City), Varanasi on 24.4.1998, which reads as follows: “Dear Sir, Re: Re Diana Clare R
State Of Rajasthan vs Manoj Kumar on 11 April, 2014
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2000 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2003, wherein the High Court has partly allowed the appeal of Raju @ Rajkumar by converting his conviction under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC and further confirming his conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment. Hemant Kumar, a co-accused along with Raju and Manoj Kumar, who had preferred an independent appeal, has been acquitted of all charges. 2. At the very outset we m
Madhukar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 11 April, 2014
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 4736 of 2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court refused to grant pension to the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Apart from the ground of delay, the High Court dismissed the case on merit on the ground that the resignation in the previous service was not tendered by appellant with prior permission. - 3. The appellant was appointed on 21.6.1950 in the Food Department at Dongargaon in District of Durg; the then ‘Madhya Prant Warhad State’ and worked till 20.12.1954. Thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Master, Upper Division in Normal School at Kondagaon, District Jagdalpur where he functioned between 22.12.1954 and 19.8.1956. Since his posting on 20.8.1956 he worked as Assistant Direct Inspector of School, Nagpur where he continued upto 9.10.1956. Thereafter, he wa
Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs U.O.I & Ors. on 11 April, 2014
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. By an office memorandum dated 26.10.1995, departmental action was initiated against the appellant who was then holding the post of Constable. He was then posted in the IInd Battalion, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi. The aforesaid action was initiated against the appellant on account of his continuous absence from duty with effect from 18.1.1995. He was served with absentee notice dated 25.5.1995 on 10.6.1995, wherein he was required to resume his duty. Failing which, he was informed that departmental action would be taken against him. The appellant neither resumed his duties, nor responded to the above absentee notice dated 25.5.1995. He was thereupon, issued a second absentee notice dated 24.8.1995, which was served on him on 10.9.1995. It is not a matter of dispute, that after initiating the above departmental proceedings against the appellant, he resumed his duties on 5.12.1995. It is therefore alleged, that his unauthorized and willful absence, extended to a period of 320 days 18 hours and 30 minutes. 2. Inspector Hari Darshan was appointed as the enquiry officer. After culmination of the departm
Annapurna vs Mallikarjun & Anr. on 11 April, 2014
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The matter relates to an Execution Proceeding in which the Executing Court put a house bearing CTS No.1610/B to auction and after rejecting the objections raised by the judgment-debtor, Respondent no.1 herein, confirmed the Court Sale by issuing Certificate of Sale in favour of the auction purchaser, the Appellant. Against the order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the Executing Court dismissing his application under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No.1/2005 before Civil Judge (Sr. Division). That appeal was dismissed on 26.7.2006 with a finding that the appeal was not maintainable. The judgment-debtor then preferred Writ Petition No.10550 of 2006 before the C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.) High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga to challenge the order of the Executing Court as well as of the Appellate Court. The High Court, by the order under appeal dated 18.2.2010, allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned order of the Executing Court and remitting
Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr. vs State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2014
R.M. LODHA, J. These three criminal appeals arise from the common judgment and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. 2. The statement (Ex.P-22) recorded by the police on 17.08.2002 between 9.55 P.M. and 10.20 P.M. at K.R. Hospital, Mandya triggered the prosecution of the appellants and one Swamy. Ex.P-22 is in Kannada, which in English translation reads: “The statement of Pradeep son of Swamygowda, 28 years, Vakkaligaru by community, agriculturist residing at Majigepura village, Srirangapatna Taluk. Today at about 8.30 p.m. night, I was sitting in front of shaving shop by the side of shop of Javaregowda on K.R.S. – Majigepura Road along with Vyramudi, Prakash and Umesh. At that time Naga, S/o Ammayamma, Jagga S/o Sentu Kumar’s sister, Gunda, Gidda, S/o Fishari Nanjaiah, Swamy, Manju and Hotte Ashoka and others wh
M/S Nathu Ram Ramesh Kumar vs Commr.Of Delhi Value Added Tax on 9 April, 2014
Anil R. Dave, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in STC Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 and CM Nos.2161 and 2162 of 2008, these appeals have been filed by the appellant assessee. The assessee has been aggrieved by the assessment orders as well as the orders of penalty. As both the appeals pertain to the assessee-appellant, at the request of the learned counsel, they were heard together. 3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under : The appellant - assessee has been registered under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as well as under the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 and is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of sweets, namkeens and other eatables. On 9th March, 2000 and 10th March, 2000, officers from the office of the Commissioner of Sales Tax had visited business premises of the appellant-firm and had recorded statements of partners of the appellant-firm and had also checked total cash inflow on those days. On those two days, sale procee
Jacky vs Tiny @ Antony & Ors. on 9 April, 2014
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. (C) No.1792 of 2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court while exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the plaint and further proceedings initiated on the basis of the plaint in the suit, quashed the order passed by the Munsiff Court and imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant for payment in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner. 3. The only question which is required to be determined in this case is whether the High Court while exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is competent to set aside the plaint ? 4. The case of the 1st respondent herein before the High Court was that the shop bearing no. X/306 was leased to the father of the 1st respondent in the year 1962 by an oral lease by the father of the 2nd respondent, namely, Akkarappatty Jose. After the death of the fath
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona And ... vs Ramnath And Anr on 9 April, 2014
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona (hereinafter referred to as “Nagar Palika”) against the judgment dated 11th April, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Second Appeal No.568 of 2009. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the judgments passed by the first appellate court and the trial court. 3. The case of the appellant–Nagar Palika is that on finding that respondent No.1 – plaintiff has made encroachment on a public road, namely, Khitoli Road, a notice under Section 187 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred o as “Act, 1961”) dated 26th November, 1982 was issued to respondent No.1–plaintiff calling upon him to remove the encroachment from Khitoli Road at Mihona, District Bhind, M.P. (hereinafter referred to as “suit land”). As respondent No.1 – plaintiff refused to comply with the aforesaid notice and also failed to show any title ov
Gopakumar B.Nair vs C.B.I & Anr on 7 April, 2014
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is the second accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘A- 2’) in CC No. 48 of 2011 (RC 27(A)/2004) in the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by the refusal dated 25.06.2013 of the High Court of Kerala to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding lodged by the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter for short ‘CBI’). 3. The allegations made against the accused-appellant in the FIR dated 30.11.2004 are to the effect that the accused-appellant alongwith one T.K. Rajeev Kumar (A-1), Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Killippalam Branch, Trivandrum and C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai (A-3) (since deceased) had entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for themselves. Specifically, it was alleged that in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the accused-appellant dishonestly applied for a car loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No. 1277 on 24.08.2002 without proper introduction. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the accused-appellant
Karnataka Power Trans. Cor. Ltd & ... vs M/S Deepak Cables (India) Ltd on 7 April, 2014
Supreme Court of India Karnataka Power Trans. Cor. Ltd & ... vs M/S Deepak Cables (India) Ltd on 7 April, 2014Author: D Misra IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4424 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20558 of 2013 Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and another ... Appellants Versus M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd. ...Respondent With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4425 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29008 of 2013) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4426 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29009 of 2013) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4427 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29010 of 2013) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4428 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29011 of 2013) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4429 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29012 of 2013) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4430 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29013 of 2013) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4431 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.
Purnya Kala Devi vs State Of Assam & Anr. on 7 April, 2014
P. Sathasivam, CJI. 1) This appeal is directed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the Gauhati High Court in MAC Appeal No. 30 of 2003 whereby the High Court held that the claimant/appellant herein is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,94,400/- as compensation for the death of her husband in the motor vehicle accident and the same is payable by Abdul Salam-who was the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time and not by the State Government. 2) Brief Facts: a) The appellant/claimant is a widow and mother of four children. On 16.02.1993, at about 10:15 a.m., the claimant’s husband died in a road accident by a speeding bus belonging to Md. Abdul Salam which was not insured and was under requisition of the State Government at the relevant time. b) The appellant filed MAC Case No. 34 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), Darrang, Mangaldai for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the registered owner–Md. Abdul Salam. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Udalguri and the State of Assam were also impleded as parties in the said case. c) The regi
Sudesh Dogra vs U.O.I & Ors on 7 April, 2014
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 125 of 2013 is the Political Secretary of J & K National Panthers Party (JKNPP) which is a political party recognised by the Election Commission of India. Setting out figures and statistics of innocent people who have lost their lives in incidents of crime and terrorists acts committed from time to time in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the persistent failure of the State Government to prevent such untoward incidents have been alleged alongwith the perceived inefficiency of the State Government in providing adequate relief and rehabilitation measures including compensation following such incidents. Specifically, the writ petition centres around an incident that had occurred on 17/18 of July, 2013 at a place called Gool in District Ramban, in the course of which a large body of civilian population had attacked a BSF camp and in the exchange of fire that ensued, 4 civilians had died and 44 others received serious injuries. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: “(a) i
M/S Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd And Ors vs M/S Magnum Aviation Pvt Ltd And ... on 7 April, 2014
R.M. LODHA, J. Leave granted. 2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is, whether the post-dated cheques issued by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘purchasers’) as an advance payment in respect of purchase orders could be considered in discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability, and, if so, whether the dishonour of such cheques amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’). The Delhi High Court in the impugned order has held that to be so. 3. The brief facts are these: On 19.02.2007 and 26.02.2007, the purchasers placed two purchase orders for supply of certain aircraft parts with respondent No.1, M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘supplier’). In respect of these purchase orders, the purchasers also issued two post-dated cheques dated 15.03.2007 for a sum of Rs.34,57,164/- and 20.03.2007 for a sum of Rs.15,91,820/-. The said cheques were issued by w
Metal Powder Company Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 7 April, 2014
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against a decree of reversal made by the High Court of Madras by its judgment and order dated 28.04.2006. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows:- The plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of metal powders and red phosphorous having its manufacturing unit and administrative office at Maravankulam, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. The plaintiff had purchased 15.06 metric tonnes of yellow phosphorous from M/s. Metallgeseliachaft AG, Frankfurt, West Germany under Invoice No. 410 64821 dated 06.06.1983 for a value of US$ 23,946 C&F. The said commodity was booked through M.V. “Palam Trader” to be delivered at Bombay Port and from the Bombay Port to the plaintiff’s factory at Maravankulam. The goods were insured for a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- under Insurance Policy dated 24.06.1983 with the Divisional Office of the defendant-insurance company at Madurai. The policy specifically included and covered amongst other risks “loss due to non-delivery of the goods at Maravankulam.” 3. While in transit the ship caught fire on 18.10.1983. The first intimation of the mishap was communicated to the plaintif
Mallamma (D) By Lrs. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 7 April, 2014
N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 10th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 3842 of 2003 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1—National Insurance Company discharging it from the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants— Appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are that on 3rd April, 1997 at about 1.00 p.m., when Honniah @ Dodda Thimmaiah was returning from the field driving a tractor with the sand load on the trailor, the tractor overturned and Honnaih @ Dodda Thimmaiah died owing to the injuries sustained in the accident. Appellants herein are the claimants—legal representatives of the deceased Honniah @ Dodda Thimmaiah. The tractor involved in the accident had the registration number KA 18/717-718 and the tractor was originally registered in the name of one Gangadhara (Respondent No. 3) and the same was insured with the Respondent No. 1 while the deceased was employed as a driver with the Respondent No.
M/S Haryana State Coop Spy & Mkt Fed ... vs M/S Jayam Textiles & Anr. on 7 April, 2014
N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 18.06.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. A. Nos. 348 and 410 of 2001 thereby dismissing the said appeals on the ground that Mr. Davinder Kumar Lal, claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the appellant-Federation, has no locus standi to file the complaints/appeals as he has failed to prove that the Appell
L.K.Pansare & Ors. vs B.B.Ithape & Ors. on 7 April, 2014
1 ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in First Appeal No. 1138 of 2009 by the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad on 14.1.2010, the appellants have approached this Court by way of this appeal. 3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under : The appellants had filed a suit against the present respondents for a declaration to the affect that the agreement to sell entered into between the appellants and the respondents should be cancelled and the appellants should be put in possession of the land in question, which had been agreed to be sold in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 17.08.1995. Certain undisputed facts in the case are to the effect that the aforesaid agreement to sell had been entered into and in pursuance of the said agreement, possession of the land in question had been handed over to the respondents upon a payment of Rs. 1 lac, which was part of the consideration. The consideration for sale was Rs.10 lacs. The remaining amount of Rs.9 lacs was to be paid in two insta
T.N.Generation & Distbn. Corpn ... vs Ppn Power Gen.Co.Pvt.Ltd. on 4 April, 2014
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. This statutory appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereinafter referred to as “APTEL” or “Appellate Tribunal”), at New Delhi in Appeal No. 176 of 2011, whereby it has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the final judgment and order dated 17th June, 2011 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in D.R.P. No. 12 of 2009. The facts have been noticed in detail both by the State Commission and the APTEL, therefore, we shall make a reference only to the very essential facts necessary for deciding this appeal. 2. The respondent, a generating company, has entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the appellant on 3rd January, 1997 for the supply of the entire Electricity to be generated by the respondent for a period of 30 years. The respondent commence
© 2012 District Court Bar Association - Thalassery. People behind the website


phone : 04902341278, Fax no 0490 2323537,