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.

Union Of India And Anr vs Sova Ispat Limited And Ors on 27 January, 2015
Chelameswar, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Aggrieved by an interim order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in AST No.432 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014, the respondents 1 and 2 therein preferred the instant appeal. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- "As the writ application has been admitted and as affidavits have been called for and as the constitutionality of the said Ordinance is under challenge, any auction conducted by the respondents, in respect of the Ardhagram coal block, as incorporated under serial No.19 of the allotment list in Annexure-II of the memorandum dated 18th December, 2014, shall abide by the result of the writ application. In the event any such auction is held, the instant order should be indicated in the auction notice." 3. The following are the facts relevant for the purpose of this order. The first respondent, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 along with one M/s. Jai Balaji Sponge Ltd., secured the allotment of a coal block known as "Ardhagram Coal Block" under the memorandum of the appellant dated 6th December, 2007,
Pathubha Govindji Rathod And Anr vs State Of Gujarat on 23 January, 2015
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 30.6.2014 passed by High Court of Gujarat whereby the said Court has partly allowed the criminal appeals arisen out of Sessions Case No. 85 of 2003 and the cross Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004, which were decided by two separate orders of the same date, i.e., 5.10.2007 by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Junagarh. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Satish Jotva (PW-42) used to live with his family in Village Arena. On 2.9.2003 his uncle Bhurabhai Jivabhai (PW-46) was going to his field on a bicycle. At about 10.30 a.m., he was intercepted by Pathubha Govindji Rathod (appellant no. 1) near bus stand. Accused/appellant no.1 picked up a quarrel with Bhurabha Jivabhai as to why he supported Natha Nagabhai (one of the deceased) in Gram Panchayat Election with whom the accused/appellant no.1 was not having cordial relations. Meanwhile Natha Nagabhai came there and joined Bhurabhai Jivabhai in the quarrel. This led heated exchange of words between both the sides, and crowd gathered there. Accused/Appellant no.1 was joined by his oth
Karnail Kaur & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 22 January, 2015
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. The abovementioned applications are filed by the appellants for allowing the concerned appeals in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitati
K.K.Sharma vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors on 22 January, 2015
In the Judgment dated 15th December, 2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.5838 of 2012 and other connected matters, the date '23.10.1989' mentioned in paragraph 13 (at Page No.17) of the said judgment shall be read as '23.10.2009' and the date '16.01.2002' mentioned in paragraph 13 (at Page No.17) and date '16.1.2012' mentioned in Paragraph 20 (at Page 21) and the date '010.6.2012' mentioned in the last page (Page No.22) of the said judgment shall be read as '01.06.2012'. .................,J. [RANJAN GOGOI] .................,J. [R.K. AGRAWAL] NEW DELHI JANUARY 22,2015.
Delhi State Indus. Dev. .Corp.Ltd vs Ashok Kumar Madan on 21 January, 2015
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No.3 of 2013, whereby the High Court has disallowed the action of the appellant- Corporation in cancellation of the plot allotted under the "Relocation Scheme" on account of non-payment of the initial 50% amount towards the cost of the plot in terms of order dated 24.1.2001 passed by this Court in M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India[1] and subsequently dismissed the L.P.A. of the appellant-Corporation. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:- The appellant-Corporation is the agency implementing the direction of this Court in the case of M.C.Mehta (supra), for the relocation of industries that are carrying on business in non conforming areas or are misusing residential properties. The respondent, who was running a commercial/industrial establishment in a residential premises, made an application dated 23.12.1996 for the allotment of a plot under the "Relocation Scheme" and also furnished a sum
Godrej & Boyce Mftg. Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 21 January, 2015
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted. The appellant whose land bearing CTS Nos. 31(pt), 7 (pt), 70 to 78, 80(pt) and 81, measuring 2188 sq. mtrs. at Vikhroli were reserved in the Development Plan in the year 1991 for acquisition by the Ministry of Railways for laying additional railway tracks between "Thane and Kurla", has questioned the correctness of the notification dated 5.8.2008 issued by the Urban Development Department of the respondent No. 1-State Government under Section 37(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (for short "the MRTP Act") proposing the modification in the Development Plan deleting the reservation of land in question from Railway reservation and adding reservation for Development Plan Road, before the High Court of Bombay questioning the power of the State Government regarding the proposed modification in the Development Plan after the period of 10 years specified under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, was expired and the State Government has failed to take steps for acquisition of the land involved in these proceedings reserved for the purpose of laying additional railway
Kuldeep Kumar Dubey & Ors vs Ramesh Chandra Goyal(D) Th Lrs on 21 January, 2015
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 19th October, 2012 passed by the High court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52578 of 2004. 3. The question for consideration is whether the suit filed by the father of the appellants in respect of property owned by appellants Nos.1 and 2 could be held to be not maintainable even when the appellants were added as plaintiffs as heirs of their father who died during pendency of the suit and whether description of the appellants who are owners as heirs instead of owners in their own right will be a case of mere "error, defect or irregularity" not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the Court which did not affect the maintainability of the suit. 4. Raj Kumar was owner of the suit property who died on 4th February, 1994. Shiv Kumar Dubey, brother of Raj Kumar filed the suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant in his capacity as heir of Raj Kumar on the ground of non payment of rent on 24th April, 1995. During pendency of the suit, Shiv Kumar Dubey died on 11th August, 1996 and the appellants Kuldeep Kumar and Pradeep Kumar sons of Shiv K
Secretary Tamilnadu Public ... vs A.B.Natarajan & Ors.Etc on 21 January, 2015
Supreme Court of India Secretary Tamilnadu Public ... vs A.B.Natarajan & Ors.Etc on 21 January, 2015Bench: Anil R. Dave, Dipak Misra ITEM NO.301+303 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (for modification/clarification and office report) WITH I.A.No. 3 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos. 23-24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) R.P. (C) 210-211 of 2015 in C.A.No. 5880-5881/2014 (for c/delay in filing Review Petition and for oral hearing) I.A.Nos. 41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report) I.A.No. 3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification and Office Report) R.P.(C) No. 2025-2026/2014 In C.A. No. 5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing) CONMT.PET.(C) D 31357/2014 IN I.A.Nos. 15-16/2014 in C.A. No. 5882- 5883/2014 CONMT.PET.(C) D 31358/2014 In I.A.No. 24/2014 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 with R.P. (C) 2628-2629 of 2014 in C.A.No. 5882-5883/2014 (with application for hearing in open court and c/delay in filing Review Petition) R.P. (C) 201-202/2015 in C. A. No. 5882-5883 of 2014 (with application for c/delay in filing Review Petition and directions) Date : 21/01/2015 These applications and petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant
T.M.Sampath & Ors vs Sec.Min.Of Water Resources & Ors on 20 January, 2015
Supreme Court of India T.M.Sampath & Ors vs Sec.Min.Of Water Resources & Ors on 20 January, 2015Bench: Anil R. Dave, Vikramajit Sen, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Anil R. Dave REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 712-713 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.3106-3107 of 2012) T.M. Sampath & Ors. ... Appellants :VERSUS: Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 714-715 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.20425-20426 of 2011) S.C. Awasthi & Ors. ... Appellants :Versus: Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 716 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19102 of 2012) P.N. Mishra ... Appellants :Versus: Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 556 OF 2012 All India Navodaya Vidyalaya Staff Association and Ors. ....Petitioners :Versus: Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 518 OF 2012 S. Kannan and Ors. ....Petitioners :Versus: Union o
Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2015
R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.10.2012 passed by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.5043 of 2011 in which the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on each of them. 3. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that three Italian nationals namely Tomaso Bruno (Accused No.1), Elisa Betta Bon Compagni (Accused No. 2) and Francesco Montis (Deceased) came as tourists to India from London and reached Mumbai on 28.12.2009. After visiting several places of interest together, these persons arrived at Varanasi on 31.1.2010 and they checked in at Hotel Buddha, Ram Katora, Varanasi. The hotel management, after checking all the relevant identity proofs, allotted Room No. 459 in the hotel to them at about 5.00 p.m. For two days the accused and deceased went around the city. On 3.2.2010, the deceased complained of a mild headache on account of which, they went out late and returned early and thereafte
Tarabai vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2015
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed by accused No.1 against the final judgment and order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 1991 which arose from the judgment and order dated 26.02.1991 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge at Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1990 convicting accused Nos. 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC with default clause and to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years under Section 304- B/34 IPC. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal in respect of the present appellant-accused No.1 and allowed the appeal in respect of accused No.2 by acquitting her of the charges. 2. Facts of the case need mention in brief to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal. 3. Krishnabai (deceased) was the daughter of Malu (PW-1) and Bhagwan Dhavele. She was married to
Walter Bau Ag, Legal Successor, Of ... vs Municipal Corp. Of Greater Mumbai ... on 20 January, 2015
1. A works contract No.3AAA dated 20th December, 2000 was executed by and between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (respondent No.1 herein) for execution of city tunnel rehabilitation works for the purposes of transporting the city's sewage. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties under the said contract, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained therein and by letter, dated 24th February, 2014, nominated one Shri R.G. Kulkarni as its Arbitrator. By the said communication, the petitioner called upon the respondent No.1 to appoint its Arbitrator within 30 days of the receipt of the aforesaid letter/notice. 2. The arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties would require to be specifically noticed and, therefore, is being extracted herein below: |"Modified Sub-Clause 67.3 | |Arbitration
Laxmidevamma & Ors vs Ranganath & Ors on 20 January, 2015
R. BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 27.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A. No.297/2007, wherein the High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the courts below and holding that the appellants- plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the space earmarked for road as and when the competent authority acquires the same. 2. Appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of the revenue land bearing Survey No.1/1 of Chikmagalur village which was converted for non- agricultural purpose under the order dated 2.4.1987 of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur. Layout was formed from the above said land and the site Nos.12 and 13 and portions of site Nos.11 and 14 were sold to the first defendant by the appellants-plaintiffs by executing two sale deeds dated 11.7.1988 and 3.1.1992. To the south of the property sold to the respondents-defendants, 'A' schedule property as shown in the suit was earmarked for the purpose of road. However, the City Development Authority did not approve the same and hence no road was formed. Case of the appellants-plaintiffs is that
Manik Taneja & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 20 January, 2015
R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. This appeal by Special Leave arises out of the judgment dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No.252 of 2014, in and by which, the High Court, while dismissing the petition, held that the petition is premature and the same is filed even before the completion of the investigation. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under:- The appellant No.1 and his wife Sakshi Jawa met with an accident with an auto rickshaw on 13.06.2013 at about 10.30 in the morning, while Sakshi Jawa was driving Maruti SX4 KA-03-MM-8646. One of the passengers, who was travelling by the auto, namely Mrs. Laxmi Ganapati, sustained injuries and she was duly admitted in the Santosh Hospital for treatment. Sakshi Jawa, the appellant No.2, is said to have paid all the hospital expenses of the injured and the matter is said to have been amicably settled between the injured and the appellants and no FIR was lodged. The Constable, who was present at the time of incident, directed the appellants to meet Mr. Kasim,
Exe. Officer,Antiyur Town ... vs G.Arumugam (D) By Lrs on 19 January, 2015
KURIAN, J.: Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court declining to condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 14.11.2000 in A.S. No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, Erode District, Tamil Nadu. The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 267 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, Tamil Nadu for declaration and possession of the suit land. The Gram Panchayat, defendant in the suit, contended that the suit land is Natham Poramboke and the possession and records of title are in the name of the Panchayat. The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment dated 11.07.1997. The complainant-first respondent herein filed first appeal as A.S. No. 108 of 1999. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed by judgment dated 14.11.2000. It appears, no steps were taken by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat at the relevant time. When the Executive Officer, at the time of filing the second appeal, came to know of the proceedings when steps for eviction were taken in execution, he immediately took steps and filed an application on 26.10.2004 for certified copy of the judgment and decree.
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr on 16 January, 2015
KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. Appellant is accused no.1 in C.R. No. 3446 of 2010 of Bund Garden Police Station in the State of Maharashtra. The case is registered by the Anti- Corruption Bureau under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'). Genesis is Annexure-P7-complaint dated 22.11.2010 given by the first respondent. According to him, he had to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- by way of bribe for getting a certificate for non-agricultural use of his land. To quote from the complaint: "On 5th October 2009 an advertisement of "Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Pune" appeared in daily Lokmat and Loksatta newspapers. The advertisement was for giving dealership of Petrol Pump. I had duly applied to the company Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for the same. As per the procedure my interview was arranged on 30th March 2010. I was selected for this work. As per the terms and conditions of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Pune it was binding on me to submit a "non agricultural certificate" of my land at Pimpalsuti, Tal Shirur, District Pune. To get the said certificate I applied to the Mava
Manohar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 16 January, 2015
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2009 by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondents of offences other than Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and grant of probation to them setting aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. As many as 13 accused were tried on the allegations that they assaulted and caused injuries to PW-5- Manohar Singh, appellant, Devi Singh PW-4, Maan Singh PW-11 and Karan Singh PW-1 on 29th October, 1980 at around 2 P.M. with a view to disturb the possession of the complainant party on the agricultural land in question. 3. The trial Court convicted the accused including respondent Nos.2 to 11 and one Mool Singh son of Jaswant Singh who died during pendency of the proceedings. Respondent Nos.2 to 11 were convicted and sentenced as follows : |Sl.N|Name of the |Convicted and Sentence Imposed | |o. |accused | | |1. |Ladu Singh |Under Section 323 IPC to undergo RI for three | | |
Sec.To Gov.Information ... vs John Maria Jesudoss on 16 January, 2015
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and Order dated 15th June, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.1099 of 2012. 3. The respondent was employed as a Junior Assistant in Government Central Press since 1988. On 15th February, 1995, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him alleging that he was not attending his official duties regularly, he failed to submit the personal register to the Superintendent and that he frequently applied for leave, adversely affecting the discipline of other co-workers. A second charge sheet dated 28th January, 1997, was served on him alleging interpolation in the attendance register falsely showing that he had attended the office on 10th January, 1997 and that he left the office before time unauthorisedly. After enquiry, the charge in the first charge sheet having been proved, Order dated 17th April, 1997 was passed removing him from service. It was observed in the order that the appellant failed to submit any written explanation; enquiry report dated 19th March, 1996 was submitted against him; a copy whereof was sent to him on 24th April, 1996 to which he did not give any reply
State Of Punjab vs Bawa Singh on 15 January, 2015
M. Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl. Rev. No. 1789 of 2013 whereby the High Court upheld the conviction of the respondent but reduced the period of sentence to the period already undergone. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that a FIR No. 151 dated 31.10.2004 was lodged against the respondent Bawa Singh and his wife Labh Kaur. The complainant Binder Singh alleged that on 30.10.2004 while he was going on his tractor to his fields he saw the respondent with a cycle and carrying a gandasa accompanied by his wife Labh Kaur whereupon he stopped his tractor. The respondent and his wife were alleged to have said that the complainant needed to be taught a lesson and allegedly hit the complainant with the gandasa. The cries of the complainant alerted his father Jangir Singh and his brother Hardev Singh who rushed to the spot whereupon the respondent and his wife fled abandoning the cycle. The complainant alleged that there was a property dispute between the parties. The complainant was ad
Narendra Kumar Amin vs Cbi & Anr on 15 January, 2015
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application (quashing) No. 2167 of 2013 rejecting the Default Bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") to the appellant in a case instituted by filing a charge sheet dated 3.7.2013 submitted by the CBI in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II, Mirzapur, numbered as Special Criminal Case No. 1 of 2013 on 8.7.2013. 3. The appellant/accused was arrested on 4.4.2013 for an offence which had taken place on 15.6.2004, which is popularly known as the fake encounter death of Ishrat Jahan. The offence alleged against the appellant was punishable with life imprisonment or death and what is popularly called Default Bail becomes the indefeasible right on the expiry of 90 days in the event of non filing of police report by then. On 3.7.2013 the first respondent viz. CBI filed what they called the charge sheet which is alleged by the
© 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