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.

Additional District And Sessions ... vs Registrar General, High Court Of ... on 18 December, 2014
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by a former Additional District and Sessions Judge of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. The factual narration in the writ petition incorporates allegations of sexual harassment aimed at the petitioner, at the behest of a sitting Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (herein after referred to as, 'the High Court'), who has been impleaded by name as respondent no.3. The authenticity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner, which have been expressly disputed by respondent no.3, would stand affirmed or repudiated only after culmination of due process. Such being the sensitivity of the matter, it would be inappropriate to disclose the identity either of the petitioner or of respondent no.3. In the title of the present writ petition, as also in its contents, the petitioner has been described as Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X'. We shall refer to her as Addl.D&SJ 'X'. This would help to preserve the dignity of the petitioner. Insofar as respondent no.3 is concerned, since he is a sitt
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra "REPORTABLE" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11527 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012) State of Punjab and others etc. ... Appellants versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. ... Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11528 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No 35892 CC No. 14663 of 2010] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11530 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.35914 .CC No. 20144 of 2010] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11531 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35916 CC No. 9303 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11532 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35917 CC No. 15876 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11533 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35919 CC No. 16190 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11534 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35920 CC No. 16303 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11535 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35921 CC No. 16309 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11536 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35923 CC No. 16325 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11537 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.35924 CC No. 16326 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO.11538 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.35927 CC No. 16327 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11539 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.35928 CC No. 16350 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11540 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35930 CC No. 16548 of 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11541 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.35931 CC No. 16580 of 2011]
Kumod Kumar & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 18 December, 2014
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. Consequent upon their selection, the appellants were inducted into the Police Department of the State of Bihar, by way of direct recruitment, as Steno Sub-Inspectors of Police. Appellant no. 1 - Kumod Kumar was appointed as such on 10.4.1982. He joined his duties on 13.4.1982. Appellant no. 2 - Ramesh Kumar was appointed on 11.9.1985, and he joined as such on 16.9.1985. 2. On 26.8.1989 and 11.6.1991, the appellants were taken (on reversion) to the general line of the Police Department as Sub-Inspectors of Police. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention, that induction into the general line of the Police Department from Steno Sub-Inspectors is permissible, subject to the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria, as also, consequent upon the selection and recommendation by the Central Selection Board. 3. The seniority of the appellants in the general line of Sub-Inspectors of Police, was determined by the Police Department, with effect from the date of their appointment to the general line of Sub-Inspectors of Police (on reversion). This determination is not acceptab
Satendra Singh vs Vinod Kumar Bhalotia on 18 December, 2014
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court, took on rent the shop in question, from the respondent-landlord, in the year 1979. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that after taking the shop on rent, the basic rental was enhanced from time to time. Finally, the rival parties executed an agreement dated 1.8.1981, whereby the shop in question, was rented by the respondent to the petitioner, for the period from August, 1981 to June, 1982. As the petitioner did not vacate the premises on the expiry of the period depicted in the rent agreement dated 1.8.1981, a suit for the eviction of the petitioner was filed by the respondent on 24.11.1982. 2. In order to contest the suit filed by the respondent, the petitioner raised a variety of pleas. First and foremost, it was the assertion of the petitioner, that the suit filed by the respondent-landlord, was unsustainable, on account of the applicability of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, the 1972 Act). While raising the instant contention, the petitioner adopted the stan
State Tr.Insp.Of Police vs A.Arun Kumar & Anr on 17 December, 2014
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Madras in Crl. R.C. No.106 of 2009 whereby it set aside the order of the Special Court dated 19.12.2008 dismissing the application for discharge preferred by the Respondents herein. 2. On 08.02.2007 RC-1/E/2007-CBI/EOW/CHENNAI was registered under sections 120B read with section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 477-A IPC and section 13 (2) read with section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POC Act for short) and section 32 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the allegations that accused nos. 1-3 named therein had entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused no.4 who was Appraiser of Customs, Inland Container Depot (ICD), Irugur, Coimbatore and with accused no.5, Inspector of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Irugur, Coimbatore during 2004-2005 and in pursuance of said conspiracy had filed false and fabricated documents to claim duty draw back to the tune of Rs.2.14 crores (approximately) from ICD, Irugur. It wa
Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 December, 2014
R.F. Nariman, J. 1. A Prophet is without honour in his own country. Substitute 'citizen' for 'prophet' and you will get the gist of the various writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India assailing Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. 2. It all began when the Burmese ceded Assam to the British on 24th February, 1826 as per the treaty of Yandabo, thus bringing to an end Ahom rule in Assam which had begun sometime in the 13th century. The British annexed Assam and placed it as an administrative unit of the Bengal
Pooja Ravinder Devidasani vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 December, 2014
N.V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave are filed by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 6th October, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 614-620 of 2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the complaints filed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act"). 3. The brief facts of these appeals are that Respondent No. 2, a finance Company, filed seven complaints under the N.I. Act against the appellant and others viz., (1) Complaint No. 3370/SS/2008 claiming Rs.1,64,69,801-14 (2) Complaint No. 3641/SS/2008 claiming Rs.1,06,55,289-91 (3) Complaint No. 3368/SS/2008 claiming Rs. 1,41,95,806-40 (4) 3640/SS/2008 claiming Rs. 85,21,294/- (5) 3369/SS/2008 claiming Rs. 1,88,12,292/- (6) 3642/SS/2008 claiming Rs. 1,69,95,353-50 and (7) Complaint No. 4086/SS/2009 for a claim of Rs. 8,08,973-25. In all the complain
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Nokia India Pvt Ltd on 17 December, 2014
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants- State of Punjab and others against the impugned orders dated 17th November, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. By the impugned orders the Division Bench of the High court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent-assessee, and held that cell phone battery charger is sold as composite package along with cell phone, and hence said charger cannot be excluded from the Entry for concessional rate of tax which applies to cell phones and parts thereof. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The respondent-M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") is a dealer registered under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in the District Mohali and is doing business of sale of cell phones and their accessories. During the year 2005-06, the Company had made sales of 1,07,2679 pieces of cell phones with battery chargers and had paid tax at the rate of 4% on the sale value of battery ch
Commnr. Sales Tax, U.P vs M/S Nikhil Khandsari Udyog on 17 December, 2014
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants- State of Punjab and others against the impugned orders dated 17th November, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. By the impugned orders the Division Bench of the High court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent-assessee, and held that cell phone battery charger is sold as composite package along with cell phone, and hence said charger cannot be excluded from the Entry for concessional rate of tax which applies to cell phones and parts thereof. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The respondent-M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") is a dealer registered under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in the District Mohali and is doing business of sale of cell phones and their accessories. During the year 2005-06, the Company had made sales of 1,07,2679 pieces of cell phones with battery chargers and had paid tax at the rate of 4% on the sale value of batter
State Of Punjab vs Labh Singh on 17 December, 2014
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. 1. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order dated 17.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Revision No.1743 of 2005 whereby it set aside the order of the Special Judge, Patiala dated 07.06.2005 framing charges against one Sikandar Singh and the present respondent. 2. FIR No.57 was lodged with Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala on 13.08.1997. It was alleged that semi-Government letter dated 04.03.1994 had stated that pursuant to certain raids conducted at the site for checking the earth work done on Bhakra main line, it was found that as regards four projects cross sections/estimates were not prepared before doing any work and that it appeared that the estimates were actually prepared by the concerned Government servants after completion of work thereby violating provisions of PWD code and causing loss to the tune of Rs.3,69,603 to the exchequer. Pursuant to said FIR crime was registered and investigation was undertaken by the Vigilance Bureau. 3. When request was made for grant of sanction to prosecute the Government servants in question, it was
Mahadeo Narayan More & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 2014
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 26.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.403 of 1991 whereby it set aside the acquittal of the present appellants and convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. PW-1 Sukhdeo and the present appellants are brothers and they were residing separately but in adjacent houses. PW-1 Sukhdeo had sold three lambs. The appellants were demanding their share in the proceeds from PW-1 Sukhdeo and his wife Sushila. Refusal to give them any share led to a quarrel and the appellants who had consumed liquor, allegedly threatened Sushila that she would be set on fire. Sushila had therefore lodged a report (Ext.30) on 16.10.1990 with the Police. On the next day i.e. on 17.10.1990 at about 4.30 pm while PW-1 Sukhdeo had gone to a grocery shop, he heard noise that a lady was burning. When he came rushing, he found Sushila in flames in front of his house. He poured water and doused the fire. Sush
M/S Ram Barai Singh & Co vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 December, 2014
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. Heard the parties. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in L.P.A. No.762 of 2009 whereby the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondents herein was allowed and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2009 in Writ Petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.10173 of 2008 was set aside on the sole ground that there was an arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties and since such alternative remedy was not availed by the appellant, the writ petition itself was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid order of the Division Bench on facts as well as on law. On law, it was contended that the writ petition could not have been held not maintainable, more so when no such objection was taken by the other side. On facts, it was submitted that the agreement noticed by the Division Bench no doubt contained an arbitration clause entitling either of the parties to invoke arbitration by the concerned Superintending Engineer in case of any
S.Seshachalam & Ors.Etc vs Chairman Bar Council Of Tamilnadu ... on 16 December, 2014
R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. Whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 denying the payment of two lakh rupees to the kin of advocates receiving pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether distinguishing this class of advocates from other law graduates enrolling in the Bar straight after their law degree did not have any rational basis are the points falling for consideration in these appeals. 3. Similar challenge is made to Section 1(3) of the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 1983 which excludes the persons who have retired from service and are in receipt
Harish Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2014
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.12.2010, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 310-SB of 2001 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant Harish Kumar. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1994 under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that accused Harish Kumar got married with Manisha (deceased) on 14.1.1992. The couple was blessed with a son in the month of November, 1992. They used to live in Hansi in the district of Hisar, Haryana. On 13.9.1993 at about 10.30 p.m., Manisha suffered burn injuries, and she was immediately taken by her husband Harish Kumar (appellant) to Civil/General Hospital where she was admitted at 11.00 p.m., i.e., within half an hour of the incident. PW-1 Dr. M.L. Kalra, Medical Officer of said hospital, who admitted the patient, record
Vijay Pal Singh & Ors vs State Of Uttarkhand on 16 December, 2014
KURIAN, J.: The appellants faced trial before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, Camp Haldwani in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 1991 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 498A of IPC and Section 201 of IPC. Sessions court acquitted all of them; but in appeal by the State, the High Court convicted them under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 498A of IPC and Section 201 of IPC and sentenced them for seven years rigorous imprisonment, two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and one year rigorous imprisonment, respectively, for each of them. Hence, this appeal. It is the prosecution case that the marriage between the second appellant- Narendra Singh-son of the first appellant-Vijay Pal Singh and the deceased Saroj daughter of Ramesh Singh took place on 10.02.1991. PW-1 was informed on 25.05.1991, by the first appellant-Vijay Pal Singh through his son Rakesh Singh that Saroj was found missing from the intervening night of 23/24th May, 1991. This information, PW-1 received around 08.00 a.m. on 25.05.1991 and, th
Pricol Limited vs Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd & ... on 16 December, 2014
1. Appointment of an Arbitrator under the Joint Venture Agreement dated 26th December, 2011 (for short "the JVA") by and between the parties has been sought by means of the present application. 2. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the existence of the JVA and/or with regard to the fact that disputes and differences over the respective rights and liabilities of the parties under the JVA have surfaced. The Arbitration clause under the JVA is in the following terms: | |"ARTICLE 30 | | |ARBITRATION | |30.1 |If any dispute arises between any of the| | |Parties hereto during the subsistence or| | |thereafter, in connection with the | | |validity, interpretation, implementation| | |or alleged material breach of any | | |provision of this JVA or regarding any | | |question, including the question as to | | |whether the termination of this JVA by | | |any Party hereto has been legitimate, | | |the Parties hereto shall endeavour
T.N.Raghupathy vs High Court Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2014
KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. Appellant has challenged an interim order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 35106 of 2014 filed in public interest. Appellant has mainly sought for a writ of mandamus for framing new norms strictly in consonance with the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 in the matter of designation of senior advocates. A writ of certiorari is also sought for quashing notifications dated 30.06.2014 and 14.07.2014 whereby 15 advocates have been designated as senior advocates by the High Court of Karnataka. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this case, we do not deem it necessary or proper to go into the various contentions raised by the appellant. As per the impugned interim order dated 04.08.2014, the High Court has taken the view that the appellant does not have locus standi to file
K.K.Sharma vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors on 15 December, 2014
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. What should be the right balance between equitable claims and the demands of the law is the constant quest of the judicial system. Delicate and complex by itself, the task becomes even more formidable and challenging if a resolution is postponed. Time, often, has the effect of strengthening equitable claims and blurring the corresponding legal entitlements. This is precisely what had happened in the present case wherein we have been called upon to decide on the correctness of the answer provided by the High Court of Delhi in a situation involving its own employees. Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2012 2. The Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter for short 'the Rules') came into effect from 1.9.1972. The Rules provided for 100% selection to fill up the post of Assistants [later designated as 'Senior Judicial Assistants' (SJA)]. The selection was to be made on the basis of a test fro
M/S Nova Ads vs Metropolitan Tansp.Corp.& Ors on 12 December, 2014
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. The present batch of appeals characterizes series of collusive concessions, maladroit misrepresentations, designed negotiations and infusion of fraud on financial morality; and further epitomises how statutory Corporations can cultivate the proclivity to give indecent burial to their interests, which is fundamentally collective interest that the Corporations are duty bound to protect, preserve and assert for. That apart, this bunch also exposes, as we have painfully penned, how the State, the protector of the interest of the citizens, has constantly maintained sphinx-like silence and also for some unfathomable reason, dexterously ignored the financial misdeeds as a colossal mute spectator. It seems all have either eloquently or silently competed with each other to write the epitaph of law. But, a pregnant one, there is a watc
Ajay Kumar Pal vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 December, 2014
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays that the sentence of death imposed upon the present petitioner be commuted to the imprisonment for life for the reasons dealt with in detail hereafter. 2. In Sessions Trial No.67 of 2005, the court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi by its judgment and order dated 09.04.2007 had awarded death sentence to the petitioner. The matter reached Jharkhand High Court in Death Reference No.3 of 2007 and also as a result of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence by its judgment and order dated 28.08.2007, which was challenged in this Court vide Criminal Appeal Nos.1295-96 of 2007. This Court concurred with the view taken by the courts below and dismissed the appeals on 16.03.2010. The death sentence imposed upon the petitioner thus stood confirmed on 16.03.2010. 3. The petitioner, who was in jail all through out, preferred Mercy Petitions addressed to the President of India as well as to the Governor of Jharkhand on 10.04.2010. The Mercy Petitions were immediately forwarded by the Superinten
© 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