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.

Om Aggarwal vs Haryana Financial Corporation & ... on 23 February, 2015
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This civil appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff) against the judgment/order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3127 of 2004 which arises out of order dated 26.03.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar in Civil Appeal No. 87/2003/2004. 2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, few relevant facts need to be mentioned in brief. 3. The plaintiff is one of the promoters of a limited company known as "M/s Indo Britain Agro Farms Limited Hisar" which is engaged in the manufacture of ordinary white buttons "Mushroom" at Hisar (Haryana). 4. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1-Haryana Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "defendant No.1"), established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 is a "Corporation" under Section 2 (b) of the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (for short "the Act").
Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 February, 2015
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48019 of 2013 whereby said Court has dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "the Code") and declined to interfere with the order dated 22.10.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, In-charge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Bail Petition No. 542 of 2013, and upheld the refusal to release the appellant on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh surrendered before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur on 5.7.2013 in connection with Crime No. 89 of 2013, registered at Police Station, Chainpur, relating to offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act. He was remanded to judicial custody till 19.7.2013. His remand was extended under Section 167 of the Code from time to time, and the last remand under said provision was granted till 3.10.2013. On 3.10.2013, the appellant moved an application u
Sunil Haribhau Kale vs Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar And Ors on 20 February, 2015
KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. Election to the Amravati Municipal Corporation was held on 16.02.2012. Of the total 87 Councillors, the Nationalist Congress Party with 17, Muslim League with 2, R.P.I. with 1, Samajwadi Party with 1 and 2 Independents formed an aghadi (group) and elected the first respondent as their group leader (Gat Neta). On 06.03.2012, the 23 members submitted the following application to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati for approval of the alliance and registration of the group leader: "... The newly elected Corporators of the Nationalist Congress Party Nos. 1 to 17 along with other newly elected Corporators, totaling to 23, have unanimously elected Shri Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar as a Group Leader of the Nationalist Congress Party. The List of the names of the Corporators from the Nationalist Congress Party, in Form - I, under Rule 31(1)(A) is submitted herewith. Similarly, the affidavit duly signed by the honourable Corporators, in Form - III, under Rule 4(1) is also annexed herewith. The strength of our Alliance is the Corporators of the Nationalist Congress Party numbering 1 to 17 and that of 6 others, totaling to 23. Hence, it is requested to kindly
The Rajasthan State Road ... vs Revat Singh on 20 February, 2015
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 1.5.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 428 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench declined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that one Kalyan Singh father of the respondent Revat Singh was a driver with appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"). He died in harness on 26.6.2006. The respondent sought compassionate appointment on the post of driver. His educational qualification was 8th standard pass. The appellants considered the application for appointment on compassionate ground, and rejected the same on the ground that the respondent was not qualified either for the post of driver or that of conductor. The respondent was accordingly communicated by the appella
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sukanta Kumar Behera & Ors on 20 February, 2015
Arun Mishra, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal has been preferred by the insurer against the order dated 9.5.2014, passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.C.A. No.576 of 2008 awarding compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- to the respondent, Dr. Sukanta Kumar Behera for the injuries sustained and permanent disability incurred by him in the accident dated 9.9.2001. The Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.4,01,414/-. 3. The appellant was working as Senior Medical Officer in Bhilai Steel Plant. He met with an accident and ultimately due to permanent disability incurred by him, his services were terminated on 29.8.2007. He incurred 60% permanent disability owing to various injuries sustained in the accident. The question to be considered is whether the High Court is justified in awarding compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- without any discussion and computation. The approach of the High Court cannot be said to be justified in such cases of injury. It is necessary to make computation of compensation to be awarded on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary h
M/S Bhandari Udyog Ltd vs Industrial Facilitation Council ... on 20 February, 2015
M. Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted. 2. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Bombay High Court has correctly decided the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 4. The Appellant Company is running a small scale industry at Raichur in the State of Karnataka and is engaged in the business of cotton ginning, pressing while extraction and in marketing the finished products. Whereas Respondent No.2 is running a cotton spinning mill at Latur in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent no.2 purchased 750 bales of cotton from the appellant-company and made part payment to the appellant. The balance amount was not paid which led to a dispute between the parties. 5. It further appears that the appellant filed an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act,1993 (for short 'IDP Act') bef
M/S Sundaram Finance Limited And ... vs T. Thankam on 20 February, 2015
KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. Once an application is duly filed in terms of Section 8 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act') before the civil court, what should be the approach of the court, is the short question arising for consideration in this case. In a suit for injunction filed by the respondent, the prayer made was to restrain the first and second defendant institutions and their men from illegally taking away from the possession of plaintiff or her employee, or interfering with the use and enjoyment of ambassador or causing damage to the car bearing registration number KL-11-AA-1473 in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff by way of a decree of injunction. The car was purchased on loan granted by the appellant. Duly complying with the procedure under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, the appellant filed an application bringing to the notice of the trial court that in view of the agreement for arbitration between the parties regarding resolution of the disputes, the court did not have jurisdiction to try the case and the parties were to be directed to th
Prasar Bharti vs Board Of Control For Cricket In ... on 20 February, 2015
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is our considered view that at this stage we ought not to consider the submissions made on behalf of the parties on the merits of the controversy as the same may have the effect of prejudicing either of the parties. 3. We have considered the suggestions put forward on behalf of the respondents. The first suggestion is with regard to setting up of an extra/special channel which has been contended by Prasar Bharati to be unviable and technically unfeasible within any reasonable period of time. Though an offer has been made on behalf of respondent No. 4 to make available its expertise and personnel to aid the Prasar Bharati, we are not inclined to consider the said offer made on behalf of respondent No. 4. The first suggestion put forward therefore does not merit acceptance. 4. Insofar as the second suggestion i.e. putting up a scroll to the effect that "the channel displaying the sports event (concerned ICC World Cup 2015 matches) is meant only for Doordarshan" has received our consideration. Acceptance of the said suggestion would be
Sanjeev vs State Of Haryana on 19 February, 2015
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 827-DB of 2002 whereby conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sonepat against the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been affirmed. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-9 Raj Singh, resident of Village Hassanpur, had three brothers. Raj Pal @ Pale (deceased) was younger to him. All the four brothers used to live separately. On 11.1.2000, Raj Singh had gone to Sonepat with his brother Raj Pal for some personal work. Raj Singh got held up in Sonepat, and Raj Pal left for the Village. Later, he (Raj Singh) also proceeded from Sonepat. At about 10.00 p.m., when Raj Singh on his way to Village Hassanpur, alighted from three-wheeler, at G.T. Road crossing, he noticed Sanjeev @ Gaja (appellant) with blood stained clothes fleeing from the side of Government tubewell towards Murthal bus stand. He
Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr on 18 February, 2015
Dipak Misra, J. The appellant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 for the purpose of setting up a 235 MW Gas based power project at Jegurupadu, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh at an estimated cost of Rs.839 crores and the appellant No. 2 is a director of the company. The main object of the appellant company is to generate and sell electricity. 2. With the intention to utilize the expert services of qualified and experienced professionals who could prepare a scheme for raising the required finance and tie up the required loan, it sought services of a consultant and eventually entered into an agreement with ABB - Projects & Trade Finance International Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland, (hereinafter referred to as "Non-Resident Company/NRC"). The NRC, having regard to the requirements of the appellant-company offered its services as financial advisor to its project from July 08, 1993. Those services included, inter alia, financial structure and security package to be offered to the lender, making an assessment of export credit agencies world-wide and obtai
Jakir Hussein vs Sabir & Ors on 18 February, 2015
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2013 passed in M.A. No. 3414 of 2010 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, wherein the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the appellant by modifying the award passed by the MACT, Mandsor, M.P., in claim case No. 3 of 2009 dated 29.07.2010. 3. The relevant facts of the case are stated as under: On 12.11.2008 at about 6.30 p.m., Jakir Hussein, the appellant herein, was driving a Tempo bearing registration No. MP-14-G-0547 from Krishi Upaj Mandi, Mandsor to Multanpura village, Madhya Pradesh. A few others were also riding along with the appellant, namely, Santosh, Kumari Krishna, Smt. Paipa Bai etc. While the appellant was on the way, a tractor bearing registration No. MP 14-K- 4886 which was driven by Sabir-respondent no.1 herein, in rash and negligent manner hit the appellant's tempo which was coming from the opposite direction with enormous force. Due to the impact of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The right arm of the appellant had severe compound fractures preventing him from performing his regular work as a driver hereaf
M. Surender Reddy vs Govt. Of A.P. And Ors on 18 February, 2015
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against common judgment dated 27th December, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 20106, 20350, 20539 and 21554 of 2004 and common order dated 28th December, 2004 passed by the same High Court in Writ Petition Nos.20215, 20305, 21558 and 23173 of 2004. By the impugned common judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upheld the finding of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") and held as follows: "26. In view of our foregoing discussions, we record the following conclusions: The finding of the Tribunal that the selection process has to be in accordance with the G.O.Ms. No.124, dated 8.8.2002 cannot be said to be erroneous or contrary to law. But, however, the direction that the entire select list has to be reviewed clubbing the appointments under 1st round selection is not sustainable and accordingly the procedure as contemplated under G.O.Ms. No.124 has to be followed only in
Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya ... vs State Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2015
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 444/2005 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, who had found the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and sentenced Ghusabhai Raisinghbhai Chorasia, appellant no.1 to suffer five years imprisonment, Rakesh Ghusabhai Chorasia, appellant no.2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause and other accused persons, namely, Bakuben W/o Ghusabhai Chorasia and Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai, appellant nos. 3 and 4 herein to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.250/- with a default clause under Section 306 IPC. That apart, separate sentences were imposed under Section 498A and 201 with the stipulation that all the sentences would run concurrently. Be it noted, the appellants were tried along with two other accused persons, namely, Sangitaben w/o. Vijaybhai and Vijay Ghusabhai Chorasia
Roxann Sharma vs Arun Sharma on 17 February, 2015
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions. 2 Civil Appeal of 2015 arising out of SLP(C) No.31615 of 2014 assails the Judgment dated 2nd August, 2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.79 of 2014, which in turn questioned the Order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, Goa (hereafter also referred to as the Civil Judge) in Matrimonial Petition No. 15/2013/II filed on 18.5.2013 before us, by the Respondent, Shri Arun Sharma (hereafter referred to as 'Father') under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. In this petition the Father has prayed inter alia that (a) the custody of the minor child, Thalbir Sharma be retained by him and that (b) by way of temporary injunction, the Appellant before us (hereinafter referred to as the Mother) be restrained from taking forcible possession of the minor child Thalbir from the custody of the Applicant. These proceedings were initiated and are pending in
Nawal Kishor Mishra & Ors vs High Court Of Judicature Of ... on 17 February, 2015
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. Leave granted. Since the issues involved in the above appeals are identical, all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. We, however, refer to the facts dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court in SLP (C) 11924- 25/2012 by judgment dated 02.03.2012. The chal
Rashmi Behl vs State Of U.P & Ors on 17 February, 2015
M.Y.Eqbal, J. Petitioner, a young girl of 22 years who hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh, has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as even though her FIR was registered on 21.1.2013 neither statements of the petitioner or her witnesses had been recorded nor her medical examination under Section 164A of the Criminal Procedure Code had been done by the Uttar Pradesh Police despite repeated notices and reminders sent to the authorities. Petitioner has alleged to the extent that she was abducted, repeatedly assaulted and raped by her own father and his accomplices for not accepting their demand to enter the flesh trade in which her family is actively involved. 2. The writ petition before us shows that the ordeal of the petitioner began in the year 2010 when the father and her family alleged to have started coercing her to join the flesh trade/prostitution. Upon realizing petitioner's unwillingness, father and the family tried to sell her off to an elderly man of about 6
N.M.Krishnakumari & Ors vs Thalakkal Assiya & Ors on 17 February, 2015
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam, in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1172 and 1173 of 1997(D), whereby the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the respondents and upheld the common judgment and order of the Land Tribunal, Nileshwar, dated 16.10.1991 passed in O.A.No.51 of 1986 and I.A.No.61 of 1986 in S.M.P.No.1474 of 1976 and set aside the common judgment and order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur, dated 20.03.1997 passed in A.A.No.221 of 1991 and A.A.No.233 of 1991. For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties in these appeals, with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder: It is an admitted fact that the petition schedule property originally belonged to Vaddakke Kovilakam of Nileshwar. It is the case of the respondents that Aboob
Petromarine Products Ltd vs Ocean Marine Services Co. Ltd. ... on 17 February, 2015
M.Y. Eqbal, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in OSA No.175 of 1998, dismissing the appeal of the appellant, upholding inter alia the disbursements made by Single Judge of the sale proceeds received by sale of the ship in question named as motor vessel 'Eleni'. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that in February, 1997 Respondent No.1 filed a suit being C.S.No.97 of 1997 under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court of Madras, for recovery of US$ 22,705.84 against Respondent No.3 herein along with an application praying for an order of arrest of the vessel which arrived at Port of Madras. The High Court in terms of Order dated 27.2.1997 issued arrest warrant. Whereas in the Bombay High Court, Appellant filed an admiralty suit A.S.No.27 of 1997 in March, 1997 for recovery of amount of US$ 39,712.97 i.e. the security of Appellant's suit claim. On 19.03.1997, Bombay High Court directed the order of arrest of Vessel M.V. Eleni. 3. Meanwhile, High Court of Madras appointed Respondent No. 2 as t
Union Of India & Ors vs V.K.Krishnan & Ors on 17 February, 2015
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. A common question of law is involved in all these appeals and therefore, at the request of the learned counsel appearing in these appeals, all these appeals have been heard and decided together. 3. The issue involved in these appeals is with regard to interpretation of some of the paras of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Manual'). We are mainly concerned with interpretation of paras 180, 189 and 320 of the Manual. For the purpose of deciding these appeals, we have taken facts from Civil Appeal No.2532 of 2010, which is the main matter in this group of matters.
Praveenbhai S Khambhayata vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd And ... on 17 February, 2015
R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 16.04.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissing the appellant's First Appeal No.282 of 2014 observing that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify him, thereby confirming the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Rajkot. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- Proforma respondents 2-4/claimants, namely, Lalmani Yadav- father, Dashmiya Lalmani yadav-mother and Janaki alias Babli Ramesh Yadav- wife of the deceased, Ramesh Lalmani Yadav filed a claim petition before Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Rajkot, claiming compensation for the death of deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav on 20.05.2002 in the course of his employment. On the fateful day of 20.05.2002, deceased Ramesh Lalmani Yadav was working as a cleaner in the vehicle be
© 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