Home   >   History of Thalasserry court

history of courts

1802 was a landmark year in the Judicial history of North Malabar in which year the first zilla court was established at Thalassery (formerly known as Tellicherry). To begin with, it was three bench Court of which, Two Judges were on circuit. H.Clephen was the First Judge of the Zilla Court, Thalassery. In 1816 a District Munsiff Court was established at Thalassery. In 1845 all Courts were abolished and in their place a Civil and Sessions Court and a Principal Sudir Amin’s Courts were established. In 1873 the Civil and Sessions Court was changed into District and Sessions Court. It is worth remembering that the Thalassery Bench and Bar celebrated the Bi-Centenary of the establishment of Zilla Court at Thalassery in 2002-2003 in a befitting manner.

Thalassery Courts has its Glorious past and that name and fame, by erudits Bar and eminent Judges due to their performance well. The contribution of Thalassery Courts to the higher Judiciary is worth mentioning viz; Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, Justice V.Khalid, Justice K.Bhaskaran, Justice K.Bhaskaran Nambiar, Justice P.A.Muhammed, late Justice P.V.Narayanan Nambiar and Justice A.K.Basheer. Minister of State for External Affairs E. Ahamed was also a former member of the Bar Association.The present Director General of Prosecution Mr.T.Asaf Ali is also a member of the glorious Bar.


Thalassery is the Judicial head quarter of Kannur Revenue District. 13 regular Courts are functioning here and camp Courts like Labour Court, Human Right Commission etc. are also conducting sittings at Thalassery Court Complex. There are 700 members on the role of the District Court Bar Association and has a well stocked and up-dated Library. As part of the Bi –Centenary celebration, a well equipped Library has also started functioning in the Court premises for the use of members and Judicial officers (Remembering the contributions of senior lawyer Mr. K K Venugopal to the library in memory of Barrister M K  Nambiar). The district court bar association library is known as ‘Reid Libraray’ named after Justice J W Reed.

Noted Malayalam writer Chandu Menon who wrote Malayalam's first novel 'Indulekha' was a Judge at Thalassery. William Logan, who served as district judge at Thalassery in 1873, is still remembered for his Malabar Manual.

Common Cause vs Union Of India on 23 April, 2014
P.Sathasivam, CJI. 1) These writ petitions are filed in public interest, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, to throw light on the enduring issue of use of publicly funded government advertising campaigns as de facto political advertising canvass which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. With the increasing awareness and emphasis on transparency in the governance of the country, the public senses the need to restrain the misuse of public funds for furthering the political motives. These petitions have been brought as a class action by certain registered societies viz., Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the Union of India and all the State Governments from using public funds for advertising in a manner so as to project the personalities, parties or particular governments and for laying down binding guidelines which will preven
Arsad Sk & Anr vs Bani Prosanna Kundu & Ors on 23 April, 2014
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 13, 2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Second Appeal No.490 of 1993 by which the High Court while allowing the second appeal filed by the respondents herein, set aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 3. The facts revealed in this case are that respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed a suit in the Court of First Munsif, District Malda, praying, inter alia, for a permanent injunction against the defendants (who are appellants herein) by declaring the title over 27 decimals of land in R.S. Plot No.95/425 situated in Mouza Mahesh Mati, P.S. Engrej Bazar in District Malda, West Bengal. The Munsif Court, Malda, by its judgment and order dated May 15, 1989 dismissed the said suit with the finding that the plaintiffs did not have any right, title or interest in the schedule property. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the respondents- plainti
S.Rajaseekaran vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 April, 2014
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. The petitioner is a leading orthopaedic surgeon of the country and the Chairman and Head of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery in the Ganga Hospital at Coimbatore. He was/is also the President of the Indian Orthopaedic Association, the largest professional body of orthopaedic surgeons in the country. In the course of his professional duties spanning over several decades the petitioner, while rendering professional service to victims of road accidents, has come to realise that the large number of accidents that occur every day on the Indian roads, causing loss of human lives besides loss of limbs and other injuries resulting in human tragedies, are wholly avoidable. In the light of the experience gained and propelled by a desire to render service beyond the call of duty, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the Court’s intervention, primarily, in the matter of enforcement of the prevailing laws and also seeking directions for enactment of what the petitioner considers to be more appropriate legislative measures
Nallabothu Ramulu @ Setharamaiah ... vs State Of A.P on 22 April, 2014
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Both these appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 24/07/2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.921 of 2000 and, hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants were charged and tried by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Sessions Case No.967 of 1994 inter alia for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 11/2/2000 acquitted all the accused. The State of Andhra Pradesh carried an appeal from the said order to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By the impugned judgment and order dated 24/07/2003, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellants in Criminal Appeal
Amar Nath vs Kewla Devi & Anr on 22 April, 2014
V.GOPALA GOWDA J. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2005 of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad wherein the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge and upheld the findings of the trial court. The appellant has appealed against the impugned judgment urging various legal and factual contentions, the main contention being that the High Court has allowed the appeal without framing substantial question/questions of law although it is mandatory as per Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’). 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are stated hereunder: The appellant, Amar Nath is the plaintiff whose father, Vaij Nath is the brother of Ram Nath and Ram Dev. The respondent no.1 - the defendant is the only daughter of Ram Nath. Ram Dev, the third brother died without issue. The appellant, Amar Nath filed a suit for possession of the suit schedule property and prayed for quashing of order dated 14.02.1970 passed by the Consolidation Officer during the Consolidation proceedings on the ground that defendan
Vasu P. Shetty vs M/S Hotel Vandana Palace & Ors on 22 April, 2014
A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Respondent No. 1 herein had taken loan from Syndicate Bank (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Bank'). Because of its default in repaying the said loan, the bank took action under the provisions of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). After taking formal possession of the mortgaged property which was given as a surety for due discharge of the loan, the said property was put to sale. The appellant herein was the highest bidder whose bid was accepted resulting into issuance of the sale certificate. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'borrower') challenged the said sale by filing application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). This application was dismissed. The borrower filed Writ Petition before the Hig
M/S. Sepal Hotel Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 22 April, 2014
A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The origin of the lis in this appeal can be treated to earlier proceedings which started sometime in 1970's and culminated in the judgment of this Court in the case of Yogender Pal & Ors. v. Municipality, Bhatinda reported in 1994 (5) SCC 709. We would revert back to the said case with detailed discussion at the appropriate stage, Suffice it is to mention at the stage that vide the said judgment this Court declared Section 192 (1) (c) of the Punjab Municipal Act {This provision conforms to Section 203 (1) (c) of the Haryana Municipal Act} as void, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, overruling of the said provision was prospective i.e. from the date of the decision rendered on 15.7.1994. 3. Coming to the facts of the present case, Shri Som Chand Katia and Shri Vijay Katia were original owners of land measuring 44
Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd vs Rajesh Verma & Ors on 22 April, 2014
A.K SIKRI, J. 1. All the aforesaid matters were heard analogously as they are inter- connected. In fact, it is the judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed in C.A. No. 2790 of 2012 which has become the trigger point of all other cases. C.A. No. 2790 of 2012 was filed by M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (formerly known as Bhushan Limited) (hereinafter referred to as 'BPSL'). That was an appeal against the judgment passed by High Court of Orissa whereby the High Court had dismissed the writ petition of the BPSL. Before proceeding further, we would like to narrate the nature of different cases and the background in which they came to be filed. CCP No. 374 of 2012 2. The erstwhile Bhushan Limited had proposed setting up of plant in some identified villages in the District of Sambalpur, Orissa. For this purpose it had made a request for acquisition of land, m
Kalpanaraj & Ors vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 22 April, 2014
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the judgment and final Order dated 30.01.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1487 of 1999, urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of their claim. 2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal. 3. The deceased, while going on his motorcycle from Vellore to Kannamangalam, collided with the bus of the respondent-Corporation as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The legal representatives of the deceased viz, his wife and two minor children filed M.C.O.P. No. 539 of 1994 contending that the accident occurred solely because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus of the respondent- Corporation. If the driver of the bus had driven the bus with carefulness, there might have been no possibility of dragging the deceased along with the motorcycle for a distant of 120 feet. The appellants- claim
Sunita Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 April, 2014
V.Gopala Gowda J. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. No. 5199 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the orders dated 27.7.2006 and 26.12.2006 passed by the respondents do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or error in law and they are perfectly justified and in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in this regard and therefore the same do not require interference by the High Court. 3. The facts in brief are stated hereunder: The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued an advertisement in the newspaper “Amar Ujala� dated 20.7.2005 inviting applications for opening its retail outlet in the said location in the category of open- W(women) by 22.8.2005, and in pursuance of the above advertisement, the appellant submitted an application on 18.8.2005 along with all the
Ashish Kumar Mazumdar vs Aishi Ram Batra Char.Hospital ... on 22 April, 2014
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Suit No. 3413 of 1991 filed by one Ashish Kumar Mazumdar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) was decreed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi awarding a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs with interest @ 12% per annum on account of damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff while undergoing treatment in the Batra Hospital, Delhi. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed on 02.12.2008 was challenged in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court by the defendant in the suit i.e. the trust managing the hospital (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff had also filed a separate appeal challenging the quantum of damages awarded and seeking enhancement thereof. The Division Bench of the High Court by a common order dated 23.12.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant trust and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff enhancing the amount of damages awarded from Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 11 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
Thimmareddy & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2014
A.K.SIKRI,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter was heard finally. 3. Instant is an appeal filed by three persons who were accused of committing offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 120-B IPC along with five others. After the trial of these accused persons, the Sessions Court had acquitted all the accused person holding that charge under the aforesaid provisions had not been proved against these accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The State had questioned the validity of the judgment of the trial court by preferring the appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the accused persons, namely P.Laxman (A-3) died. Appeal was heard qua remaining seven accused persons. The High Court vide its judgment dated 1st December 2010 has convicted five of the seven accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 120- B of the IPC and have imposed the sentence of rigo
Harbans Pershad Jaiswal(D) By Lrs vs Urmila Devi Jaiswal (Dead) By Lrs on 21 April, 2014
A.K.SIKRI,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In all these appeals identical question of law is raised, which has arisen for consideration in the same background facts in these cases, which are between the same parties. There is thus, a commonality of parties, the dispute as well as question of law in all these cases and for this reason these appeals were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The factual details giving rise to the filing of these appeals do not need a large canvass, and our purpose would be served in drawing the picture with the following relevant facts: 4. One Late Shiv Pershad Jaiswal was the owner and possessor of House No.11-2-378, Habeed Nagar, Hyderabad as well as House No.4-114 to 117 with appurtenant land admeasuring about Ac.2.05 guntas at Madchal, R.R. District. After his death, the respondent herein (daughter of Shiv
State Of Tripura & Ors vs Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors on 21 April, 2014
1 ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in RSA No. 20 of 1998 by the High Court of Gauhati at Agartala on 17th March, 2006, the State of Tripura and others-employers of respondent no.1 have filed this appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are as under: Respondent No. 1 had been appointed as a librarian by the Directorate of Education, Government of Tripura by an order dated 04.09.1964 and he had joined his duties at Birchandra Public Library, Agartala on 12.09.1964. While in service, he was sent to Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi to undergo further education and to get qualification of Bachelor of Library Science during the academic year 1965-66. After completion of his studies, he had resumed his duties on 27.07.1966. Thereafter, the respondent- employee had remained absent without any intimation or sanctioned leave for about one year i.e. from 01.08.1966 to 20.09. 1967. During his absence from service, by letter dated 13.08.1966, the respondent had been called upon to repo
Uday Gupta vs Aysha And Anr on 21 April, 2014
Permission to file special leave petition is granted. This petition has been filed by an Advocate of this Court though not a party before the Madras High Court wherein the judgment impugned dated 17.6.2013 had been passed in Criminal R.C. No.674 of 2007 making certain observation regarding the relationship between man and woman and particularly the institution of marriage. Mr. M.R. Calla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the observations made by the High Court that “a valid marriage does not necessarily mean that all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed and subsequently solemnized� are not legally tenable. It has been pointed out by Mr. Calla, learned senior counsel that such observations demolish the very institution of marriage itself, and therefore, are liable to be set aside. In view of the nature of the order we propose to pass, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to anyone. We have gone through
M/S. Soma Isolux Nh One Tollway ... vs Harish Kumar Puri & Ors on 17 April, 2014
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave has been filed assailing the order dated 27.5.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.M.No. 3301/2013 arising out of CWP No. 13848/1998 whereby certain adverse directions to be related hereinafter were issued having grave implication on the contractual rights of the appellant- M/s. Soma Isolux NH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Concessionaire company’) as it was saddled with a fine of Rs.60 crores and Rs.7 crores to be paid by the appellant-Concessionaire Company and its Director respectively which were to be deposited with the Registrar General of the High Court within one month of the date of the order. The respondent No.6 National Highways Authority of India (shortly referred to as ‘the NHAI’) was further directed to proceed in the matter forthwith and take possession of the Highway project and ensure that collection of toll
Asso.Of Unified ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 April, 2014
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4591 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1804 of 2014] AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4592 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2925 of 2014] 1. Leave granted. 2. We are in these appeals concerned with the scope and ambit of the powers and duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in relation to the proper computation and qu
Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti ... vs State Of Rajasthan Tr.Chief Sec.& ... on 17 April, 2014
N.V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted. 2. The present Civil Appeals arise out of the common order dated 4th May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The facts as culled out from the impugned order dated 4th May, 2010 are – The appellant herein filed a Public Interest Litigation i.e. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 2321/2006 alleging misappropriation of property of Galta Peeth/Thikana (3rd respondent herein); whether Mahanth appointed vide order dated 09.06.1943 was to administer the properties during his life time or there was a right of succession. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2004 was also filed by one Mahanth Ram Saran Das as a Public Interest Litigation, whereas D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 6607 of 2004 was filed by Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya challenging the notifications dated 17.09.2004 whereby Chapter 10 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was made applicable to the Trust and notification dated 18.09.2004
O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Official Liquidator & Ors on 17 April, 2014
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. The appellant, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. is a statutory corporation constituted by and under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, (Central Act, 43 of 1959). In 1967, the appellant commenced supply of natural gas to the industries in and around Vadodra. The Federation of Gujarat Mills and Industries agreed to purchase the gas supplied by ONGC at Rs.100/- per unit. 2. The industries
M.K. Gopinathan vs J. Krishna & Ors on 17 April, 2014
N.V. RAMANA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th March, 2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Motor Accident Claims Appeal No. 1441 of 2004. 2. The case of the appellant is that he was employed in Malaysia as a Tool & Die Engineer. He had come to his native town in Kerala to attend his sister’s wedding. On 15.5.1996, when the appellant was traveling in a jeep, a bus coming from the opposite direction rammed into the jeep resulting in five deaths and the appellant suffered severe injuries, namely a crush injury on his upper right arm which had to be - amputated. The appellant was treated as an in-patient in the hospital for 42 days and during which time four surgeries were conducted on him. 3. The appellant filed O.P. (MV) No. 304 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.14. The Tribunal did not believe the version of the appellant that he had been employed permanently as a Tool and Die Engineer in Malaysia and was drawing Rs.50,000/- per month. However, the
© 2012 District Court Bar Association - Thalassery. People behind the website


phone : 04902341278, Fax no 0490 2323537,