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.

Rathnavathi & Anr vs Kavita Ganashamdas on 29 October, 2014
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The plaintiff filed two suits, one for specific performance of agreement and other for grant of permanent injunction in relation to the suit house. The trial court vide common judgment and decree dated 16.10.2001 dismissed both the suits. The first appellate court, i.e., the High Court, in appeal, by impugned judgment and decree dated 08.09.2011 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed both the suits in appeal, against the defendants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court, Defendants 1 and 3 have approached this Court in the instant civil appeals. 3. The question arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first appeals preferred by the plaintiff, resulting in decreeing the two civil suits against defendants in relation to suit house? 4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the civil suits, and now in these appeals, it is necessary to state the relevant facts. 5. For the sake of convenience, description of parties herein is taken from Original Sui
Munni @ Syed Akbar vs State Of Insp.Of Police, All Women ... on 29 October, 2014
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of A1, who is the appellant herein, is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 16.08.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.434 of 2006. 2. Brief facts which are required to be stated are that the appellant is the husband of the deceased Gulsara Banu. Along with the appellant, his parents were also proceeded against, who were arrayed as A2 and A3. All the three accused were charged for offences under Sections 498(A), 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The parents of the appellant viz., A2 and A3 were found guilty of the offences under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A2 who was also charged under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. was acquitted of those charges. A2 and A3 have already undergone the sentence, even while the appellant’s appeal was preferred before the High Court. The High Court therefore dealt with the case of the appellant alone. 3. As far as the occurrence is concerned, the appellant got married to the deceased
Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd vs Employees State Insurance ... on 28 October, 2014
R. BANUMATHI, J. Short point falling for consideration in this appeal is whether kitchen of the appellant-club and catering section thereon come within the meaning of “factory� and “manufacturing process� as defined in Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘ESI Act’). 2. The appellant-Delhi Gymkhana Club is a member club, duly registered under the Companies Act. Appellant-club has a kitchen to cook food items to provide food and refreshment to its members. On 20.03.1975, a notification was issued by the Delhi Administration, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act, stating that the provisions contemplated under the Act shall be extended to the establishments specified in the Schedule thereon. In furtherance of the said notification, the respondent-ESI Corporation sought to apply the provisions of the Act on the appellant-club, on the ground that the preparation of food items amounts to “manufacturing process� and that the appellant–club is a factory/establishment covered under the provisions of the ESI Act. After issuing the show cause notice,
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck vs Gharda Chemicals Ltd. & Ors on 28 October, 2014
Chelameswar, J. 1. The first respondent is a company under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act�). Two appellants herein who are mother (since deceased) and son respectively are minority shareholders holding or otherwise controlling 17 per cent of the equity in the first respondent company. HISTORY OF THE COMPANY 2. First respondent company is carrying on the business of “selling chemical process, knowhow and of manufacturing dyes, chemicals and textile auxiliaries� etc. It all started as a family firm in the year 1962 known as M/s. Gardha Chemicals Industries. The above-mentioned partnership was created by (1) the mother of the first appellant, (2) the husband of the first appellant, (3) a sister of the first appellant and the second respondent - the brother of the first appellant. The partnership deed contained a clause that none of the partners could sell his/her respective share in the firm without offering it first to the other partners. 3. On 6th March, 1967, a private limited company was incorporated with the principal object of taking over the assets and liabilities of the above- mentioned partnership
New Mangalore Port List.Workers ... vs Reg.Dir.,Esi Corp.,Bangalore on 28 October, 2014
R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. Whether or not New Mangalore Port Listed Workers Managing Committee is an integral part of New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) and whether State Government is the “appropriate government� to extend the applicability of provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) to the New Mangalore Port Listed Workers Managing Committee are the points falling for consideration in this appeal. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- Section 1(5) of the ESI Act enables the appropriate government to issue notification in respect of any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise. In exercise of its power under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act, a notification dated 22.1.1986 was issued by the Government of Karnataka to extend the provisions of the ESI Act to certain areas, in and around the city of Mangalore. The said notif
Sunita Kachwaha And Ors vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 October, 2014
R. BANUMATHI, J. Delay in filing and refiling SLP condoned and leave granted. 2. This appeal is preferred against the Order dated 26.06.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.2303/2007, in and by which, the High Court has set aside the order of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- awarded to the wife while affirming the order of maintenance awarded to the two daughters. 3. Marriage of the first appellant was solemnized with respondent on 5.02.1996 as per Hindu rites and the spouses are blessed with two daughters. The first daughter Ankita is aged 12 years and second daughter Akshita is 8 years old as on the date of filing of SLP. Case of the appellant-wife is that when she was living in the matrimonial house, the respondent and her in-laws were harassing her on the ground that she has not brought sufficient dowry. The appellant-wife is alleged to have been subjected to physical and mental cruelty, demanding car and dowry. As the torture became intolerable, the appellant-wife had contacted her brothers in the year 2006, and her brothers came to Kota to take the a
Kulwant Singh & Ors vs Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd on 28 October, 2014
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. 1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No………of 2014 [CC. Nos.4232-4233 of 2014]. 2. Leave granted in all the matters. 3. These appeals have been preferred against common judgment and Order dated 5th August, 2011 in MAC Appeal Nos.70 and 68 of 2011 and dated 8th March, 2013 in Review Petition Nos.793 and 776 of 2011 respectively of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 4. The question raised for consideration is whether the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy when the driver possesses valid driving licence for driving light vehicle but fails to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle. 5. The claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the dependents of the deceased Rizwan S/o Kadir @ Abdul Kadir who died in a road accident on 8th October, 2005 at about 05.30 A.M. while driving T
Ksl & Industries Ltd vs M/S. Arihant Threads Ltd. & Ors on 27 October, 2014
S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. This appeal is placed before us by way of a reference, made by a two- Judge Bench of this Court, C.K. Thakker and Altamas Kabir, JJ. which heard the matter on an earlier occasion and held that the appeal deserves to be allowed and that the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside. In view of a difference of opinion having arisen on the interpretation of Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the `RDDB' Act) the matter has been referred for decision to this Bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 2. The present appeal is preferred by KSL & Industries Ltd. (`appellant' for short) against the final Judgment and Order dated 23.02.06 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2041-2042 OF 2006. The High Court set aside the Order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (`DRAT' for short) and held that in view of the bar contained in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provi
Pradeep Kumar Maskara & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 October, 2014
M.Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order dated 20.3.2009, passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta in W.P.L.R.T. Nos. 728 of 2002, 429 of 2002 and 430 of 2002, whereby the High Court dismissed the aforementioned Writ Applications holding that the question as to whether Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act would be applicable qua the appellants in view of the fact that they belonged to a place which was in erstwhile State of Bihar and by virtue of the State Reorganisation Act, their lands were included in the State of West Bengal was decided against the appellants relying on the judgment in case of Ganga Dhar Singh & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., 1997 (II) CHN 140. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellants, presently residents of Dalkola, sub-divisional town in the District of North Dinajpur, West Bengal, had certain ancestral lands in the said town. On 30.3.1956, the West Bengal Lan
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. This appeal, preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its functionaries, assails the order of the High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the order of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for short, 'the Tribunal') passed in favour of the respondents herein, is affirmed. To mention at the outset, the Tribunal as well as the High Court has given the respondents herein benefit of the order passed by the Court in earlier round of litigation filed by similarly situated persons. The appellants contend that as far as these respondents are concerned, they never approached the Court seeking such a relief and were only fence-sitters and, therefore, relief should not have been granted to them even if they were similarly situated as those persons who have been granted relief in the petitions filed by them. Respondents, on the other hand, contend that once it is found that both sets of persons are identically placed, the impugn
Kapil Mehra & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 October, 2014
R. BANUMATHI, J. These appeals are directed against the impugned Orders dated 24.12.2010 and 13.10.2011 passed by Delhi High Court in L.A. Appeal No.149/2007 and C.M. No.735/2011 in L.A. Appeal No.149/2007 respectively by which High Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.14,974/- per sq. yard for appellants’ land acquired by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for development of Vasant Kunj Residential Scheme, Delhi along with interest and proportionate costs. 2. Shorn of details of the previous notification in 1983 and the earlier rounds of litigation, background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 19.2.1997, a fresh notification was issued by the Land and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) proposing to acquire the land of the appellants measuring 12 Bigha (12096 sq. yards) for development of Vasant Kunj under the planned development scheme of Delhi. Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) by award No. 2/98-99 dated 18.9.1998 assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.2,05,642.07 paise per bigha (Rs.205/-per sq.yard), adding additional interest @ 12% per annum on the market v
Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd vs Anu Mehta & Ors on 17 October, 2014
Supreme Court of India Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd vs Anu Mehta & Ors on 17 October, 2014Bench: Ranjana Prakash Desai, N.V. Ramana REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2228 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1724 of 2013] Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. ... Appellants Vs. Anu Mehta & Ors. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2261-2265 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.5500-5504 of 2013] Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., etc. ... Appellants Vs. Navkar Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & etc. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2250-2260 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.5460-5470 of 2013] Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., etc. … Appellants Vs. Navkar Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. & etc. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2229-2241 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.5377-5389 of 2013] Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., etc. ... Appellants Vs. Navkar Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. & etc. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2242-2249 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.5437-5444 of 2013] Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., etc. ... Appellants Vs. Navkar Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors etc. … Re
Kuldeep Kaur vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 October, 2014
M.Y. Eqbal, J.: Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave arises out of judgment and order dated 3.1.2013 of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2006, whereby Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting her under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. The High Court also dismissed the appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by trial court. 3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 6.6.2001 the complainant of the case viz. Captain Jagtar Singh (PW1) lodged a report Ex.A-1 at P.S. Sitarganj, wherein it has been stated that marriage of his daughter Jagpreet Kaur was solemnized with Upkar Singh son of Harpal Singh on 1.3.2001. The complainant gave the articles in the marriage according to his capacity, but in-laws of his daughter used to demand car etc. and used to taunt and harass his daughter. It was further complained that Jagpreet Kaur told the informant
Dipanwita Roy vs Ronobroto Roy on 15 October, 2014
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. The petitioner-wife Dipanwita Roy and the respondent-husband Ronobroto Roy, were married at Calcutta. Their marriage was registered on 9.2.2003. The present controversy emerges from a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the respondent, inter alia, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband, on 25.1.2003. 2. One of the grounds for seeking divorce was, based on the alleged adulterous life style of the petitioner-wife. For his above assertion, the respondent-husband made the following allegations in paragraphs 23 to 25 of his petition: “23. That since 22.09.2007 the petitioner never lived with the respondent and did not share bed at all. On a very few occasion since then the respondent came to the petitioner's place of residence to collect her things and lived there against the will of all to avoid public scandal the petitioner did not turn the respondent house on those occasion. 24. That by her ext
Sarjeet Singh (D) Th. Lrs vs Hari Singh & Ors on 15 October, 2014
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J. Leave granted. 1 The Appellants essay to restore the concurrent views of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rewari, in Civil Suit No.308 of 1997 in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 27.8.2002, as also the Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari, in Civil Appeal No.50 of 2002. Their views, however, did not find favour with the High Court in the impugned Judgment dated 7.9.2012 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1346 of 2009. 2 The parties are shareholders of Shamilat Patti Sayar of land comprised in Khewat No.300 Khatoni No.551, Khasra No.622(O-1O), Gair Mumkin Gatwar, situated in village Dahina, as per the jamabandi of the year 1970- 71. The Plaintiffs/Appellants filed a suit for declaration, and possession of the suit land against the Defendants/Respondents. The Plaint does not contain a categorical stand as to whether the Defendants/Respondents are co- sharers along with the Plaintiffs/Appellants in respect of the suit land. It has been pleaded that the Defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit land which has not been validly part
Deo Kalya Patil & Ors vs Nagindas Shamjibhai Shah Thr. ... on 15 October, 2014
Chelameswar, J. 1. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in suit No .632 of 2010 on the file of the Special Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane and the respondents are the defendants therein. For the sake of convenience they are referred to in this judgment as they are in the suit. The suit is filed with the prayers as follow:- it be declared that the suit lands were agricultural lands on 1.4.1957; if be declared that the predecessor-in-title – Kalya Padya Patil of the Plaintiffs was lawfully in possession and cultivating the suit lands on 1.4.1957 as tenant thereof and consequently had become the deemed purchaser thereof and the Plaintiffs being the heirs of said Kalya Padya Patil are therefore entitled to the benefits conferred upon him by the provisions of B.T. & A.L. Act. It be declared that the Sale transactions that took place after the Tillers Day i.e. dated 22.3.1960, 21.10.1963 and 30.5.1964 which were recorded in the Mutation Entry Nos. 357, 466 and 467 respectively, are illegal, bad in law, void ab-initio and not binding upon the Plaintiffs. It be declared that the proceedings i.e. Tenan
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Pronab Chakraborty on 15 October, 2014
J.S. KHEHAR, J. : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2641 OF 2012 The respondent – Pronab Chakraborty was inducted into the employment of the police department of the State of West Bengal, wherein while he was holding the post of Inspector of Police in the Enforcement Branch, he was issued a chargesheet dated 31.07.2007. The charges which were levelled against the respondent, are being extracted hereunder: “CHARGE – 1 : While you were a S.I. of Police of Howrah District during the period between 01.01.88 and 31.12.93, you acquired total assets in the shape of land, property and deposit in the Bank to the extent of Rs. 3,44,600/-. Out of the said sum, an amount of Rs. 2,69,246.80 paise for which you could not give any cogent explanation for acquisition of the properties which were subsequently established as disproportionate of asset to your
Rajni Rani & Anr vs Khairati Lal & Ors on 14 October, 2014
Dipak Misra, J. The centrirorial issue that has stemmed in this appeal by grant of special leave is whether an order of dismissal of the counter-claim being barred by principles of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) can be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P.C. or in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or is it required to be assailed by preferring an appeal. The factual score need not be exposited in detail. Suffice it to state that one Phoolan Rani, wife of Om Prakash, and another instituted Civil Suit No. 107B of 2003 seeking a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the land admeasuring 1/9th share in the suit land and further praying for permanent injunction against the defendants. After issue of notice, the defendants entered contest and the defendant Nos.12 to 14 filed a counter-claim putting forth that they had the right, title and interest as the original owner, Jeth Ram, had executed a Will dated 18.5.1995 in their favour. After the counter-claim was filed, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for dismissal of the counter-claim on the foundation t
Sameer Singh & Anr vs Abdul Rab & Ors on 14 October, 2014
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted. The Universal Construction Company, the respondent No. 3 herein, instituted Civil Suit No. 480 of 1971 in the High Court of Calcutta invoking its original civil jurisdiction for realization of a sum of Rs.2,15,289.28 paise from the Engineers Syndicate (India) Private Limited, the 4th respondent herein, and an ex parte decree was passed in the suit. After obtaining the decree, respondent No. 3 assigned the same in favour of Abdul Rab, respondent No. 1 herein, on 20th May, 2005. After the deed of assignment was given the formal shape, the 1st respondent moved the High Court of Calcutta and got the said decree transferred to the Court of Sub Judge-I, Jamshedpur for execution by way of attachment and sale of immovable properties of the 4th respondent situated within the jurisdiction of the executing Court. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed an execution case against the 4th respondent. A schedule of property was attached to the execution petition. 3. As the factual matrix would unfurl, the executing court after receipt of the decree on 23.8.2006 issued notice to the 4th respondent by registered post and when the service was not effe
Ananda Poojary vs State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2014
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2. By this appeal, the appellant Ananda Poojary questions the legality and validity of the judgment dated 14.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, whereby the appellant's conviction for offences under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') has been upheld. The High Court has also upheld the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Udupi. The result is that the appellant is made to suffer incarceration for life for allegedly murdering his own foster mother. 3. It is an admitted position, accepted by the two courts below, that the deceased Dorathi Kutinho, who was a Teacher, had brought Ananda Poojary (the appellant) who was her student to her house and had showered love and affection like a mother. In her old age, there was nobody to look after her as she was living with her only brother Rudolph Kutinho, who was mentally challenged. Dorathi Kutinho had full confidence in the appellant and kept him as a caretaker. It is also established on r
© 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