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.

Dhole Govind Sahebrao & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 March, 2015
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. The present controversy is yet another seniority dispute amongst employees of the Customs and Central Excise Department. The controversy herein has emerged on account of a reconstitution of cadres. In the first instance, a separate cadre was constituted, out of the existing ministerial cadre, for discharging electronic data processing responsibilities. This was necessitated by the decision of the department to introduce computerization, in its functioning. The instant computerization project, which commenced in 1991-92, seems to have been fully implemented in or around 2002-03. Consequent upon achievement of the above objective, the separate cadre so created, was sought to be re-amalgamated with the existing ministerial cadre. The above noticed bifurcation and re- amalgamation, resulted in a co-incidental career advancement, for those who had accepted to break away from the original ministerial cadre. Some of those who were originally placed at inferior positions in the seniority list of the original ministerial cadre, acquired superiority over their counterparts (in the original ministerial cadre), consequent upon their promotion within the cadre of data entry operators, which resulted in their acquiring a higher position in seniority, over and above those who were senior to them in the original ministerial cadre. Before embarking upon the niceties of the seniority dispute, it is imperative to delve upon the reasons of the afore-stated bifurcation, and re-amalgamation of cadres. The instant aspect of the matter is accordingly being dealt with, in the following paragraphs.
S. Satyanarayana vs Energo Masch Power ... on 26 March, 2015
These Criminal Appeals are preferred by the complainant against the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by which the High Court has in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) quashed the proceedings in CC No. 37 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad insofar as the accused Nos. A4, A5, A6, A9 and A10 are concerned. 2. The complainant i.e. the appellant herein lodged a private complaint in his capacity as a Promoter Director of Sri Satyanarayana Power Private Ltd. - a company incorporated to generate biomass based power project in the District of Warangal in the State of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). The complaint was filed in respect of the offences allegedly committed under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 'Companies Act') and Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC'). This complaint was filed in the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad.
Ved Mitter Gill vs U.T. Administration, Chandigarh ... on 26 March, 2015
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. Through this common order we propose to dispose of the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20379 of 2006 as well as the Transferred Case (C) Nos. 41- 44 of 2010. The aforesaid transferred cases were pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the High Court'). Whilst the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20379 of 2006 came to be filed before this Court assailing the order dated 1.5.2006 passed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5682 of 2006. The prayer for transfer was premised on the fact that the transferred cases were couched in the same factual foundation and raised similar legal issues, as were being canvassed through Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20379 of 2006. In the above view of the matter, while disposing of the special leave petition, as well as, the transferred cases, we shall refer to the facts in Ved Mitter Gill's case, i.e., the matter pending in this Court as against the order passed by the High Court on 1.5.2006 dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.5682 of 2006.
A. Raghu, Son Of Rajaiah vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors on 26 March, 2015
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. It is not a matter of dispute, that the conditions of service including the manner and method of determining seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, are regulated by the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as, the Service Rules), notified on 26.8.1959, read with the Special Rules notified on 14.12.1990. Learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed, that the issue of seniority (which is the pointed issue of dispute between the rival parties in the present appeals), is to be determined under rule 15 of the said rules, which is extracted hereunder:- "15. "Seniority:-- (a) The seniority of a person in the class or category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to lower rank as a punishment be determined by the date of his first appointment to such class or category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards his probation under the General Rules his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation:
Mohan Singh Gill & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors. Etc. Etc on 25 March, 2015
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2) These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated April 29, 2011 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby number of writ petitions which were filed challenging the acquisition of land measuring 192.75 acres vide two notifications, both dated 10.08.2009, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were dismissed. As a consequence, validity of the notifications has been upheld, holding that acquisition for public purpose for development of Missing Link-II from Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana as well as for development of residential urban estate along proposed road from Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana, is just and proper.
Pvr Limited vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 25 March, 2015
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. The appellant - PVR Limited - in Civil Appeal Nos. 10091 of 2010 and 10092 of 2010 is engaged in the business of exhibiting movies at various locations across the country including Bangalore. The appellant operates eleven (11) theaters in a multiplex at Bangalore for which it has been granted necessary permissions/approvals as well as requisite licence for exhibition by the 2nd respondent i.e. District Magistrate, Bangalore. The appellant had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging, inter alia, a communication dated 2nd April, 2005 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Department of Internal Administration and Transport, Bangalore to the 2nd respondent informing the said respondent that theater owners and owners of M/s PVR Cinemas are required to obtain compulsory certificates from Films Division under the Karnataka Cinemas Regulation Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under Rule 35(c) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") framed thereunder and to exhibit the films approved by the Films Division. An endorsement dated 28th May, 2005 requiring the appellant to obtain "Compulsory Certificate from Films Division" under the aforesaid Act and the Rules was also put to challenge in the writ petition filed. The effect of the aforesaid impugned orders, it may be noticed, is that the appellant before screening the regular movies in its theaters was required to exhibit documentary films produced by the Films Division only.
Dashmesh Educational Society vs Punjab Urban Deve.Authority & Ors on 25 March, 2015
RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. The plaintiff in civil Suit No.65 of 2001 i.e. Dashmesh Education Society has preferred these appeals against the common order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA Nos. 4328 and 4345 of 2002. By the aforesaid order, the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff, which was affirmed in first appeal, has been reversed by the High Court. 2. Civil Suit No.65 of 2001 was filed seeking a declaration that the Application dated 21.8.1998 filed by the plaintiff before the defendants seeking permission for setting up a Country Club/Resort at village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar is deemed to have been allowed and permission granted/sanctioned, the same having not been refused in writing within the statutory period of 90 days of its submission as mandated by the provisions of the Punjab New Capital Periphery Control Act, 1952. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought "restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering in any manner in the works undertaken by the plaintiff over the land and from demolishing the constructions/developments already made over the suit land forcibly or in any other manner."
Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015
R.F. NARIMAN, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raises very important and far-reaching questions relatable primarily to the fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The immediate cause for concern in these petitions is Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000. This Section was not in the Act as originally enacted, but came into force by virtue of an Amendment Act of 2009 with effect from 27.10.2009. Since all the arguments raised by several counsel for the petitioners deal with the unconstitutionality of this Section it is set out hereinbelow:
Manmeet Singh Alias Goldie vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2015
Amitava Roy,J. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal launches a challenge to the conviction of the appellant herein under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Code") for committing dacoity as well as murder of one Mohinder Singh and the consequential sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of further rigorous imprisonment for two months held out by the judgment and order dated 17.1.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.RT-4/15.3.05/17.5.05 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar and affirmed by the judgment and order dated 1.11.2010 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA No.133/2007.
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Gauhati & ... vs M/S. Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. & Anr on 24 March, 2015
R.F.Nariman, J. 1. The question which arises for consideration in the present appeals is the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendment to Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court have held that the retrospective effect given to the amendment would be arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as the provision, being a penal provision, would operate harshly on assessees who have made a loss instead of a profit, the difference between the loss showed in the return filed by the assessee and the loss assessed to income tax having to bear an additional income tax at the rate of 20%.
D.D.A vs Gaurav Kukreja on 24 March, 2015
R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No.466 of 2010, holding that respondent is entitled to be taken as a Power of Attorney holder and is thereby entitled to get the suit property converted from leasehold to freehold. 3. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- The property which is sought to be converted is comprised in Plot No.N-73, Panchsheel Cooperative House Building Society Ltd, New Delhi. DDA executed perpetual sub-lease deed dated 16.08.1967 in respect of the suit property in favour of one Sh. Jan Talwar (Defendant No.1 in the original suit). Jan Talwar by an agreement to sell dated 10.6.1986, agreed to sell the suit property to Mrs. Raymen Kukreja for a sale consideration of Rs.20,50,000/-. Jan Talwar, in respect of the same suit property, also executed a General Power of Attorney dated 10.06.1986 in favour of Lekh Raj Kukreja-husband of vendee i.e. Mrs. Raymen Kukreja. The cause of action arose in the year 1989, when Jan Talwar refused to execute the sale deed, even after receiving the complete sale consideration. This led to the filing of civil suit being CS (OS) No.2777/1989 for a decree of specific performance of the aforesaid agreement to sell. Though the agreement to sell was made in favour of Raymen Kukreja, the suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent-Gaurav Kukreja and Lekh Raj Kukreja (father of Gaurav Kukreja) against Jan Talwar and Raymen Kukreja (mother of Gaurav Kukreja). The civil suit was filed on the premise that both, the GPA holder (father of Gaurav Kukreja) and vendee (mother of Gaurav Kukreja) had surrendered their rights in favour of Gaurav Kukreja and that they had no objection if the property is transferred in the name of respondent. Jan Talwar having remained ex parte, the suit was decreed by Single Judge in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties therein. Learned Single Judge of the High Court while deciding the CS (OS) No.2777/1989 held the entire transaction to be valid and observed that respondent and his father and mother were ready and willing to complete the sale transaction dated 10.06.1986 but Jan Talwar failed to perform his part of obligation. In the civil suit, Jan Talwar though entered appearance subsequently remained exparte. Based on the compromise decree in the original suit, Gaurav Kukreja applied to DDA for the conversion of suit property from leasehold to freehold. However, the DDA refused the conversion on the ground that as per the scheme, Gaurav Kukreja did not possess a good title.
State Of Mp vs Nomi Singh & Anr on 24 March, 2015
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 30.5.2011, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, in Second Appeal No. 256 of 2005 whereby said court allowed the second appeal and set aside the decree passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 5A of 2005, and the one dated 30.11.2004 passed by the trial court (V Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 189 A of 2004). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Briefly stated, case of the appellant (defendant) is that land in question bearing survey Nos. 376 to 400 and 401 to 411, measuring 45 bigha 10 biswa situated at village Dinapur, Tehsil and District Gwalior, was acquired by the State Government for setting up industrial area, in the year 1946. However, the industrial area could not be set up and a part of the land appears to have been given on lease to plaintiff-respondent Nomi Singh on 11.5.1951 for a period of one year. In the year 1978 Tehsildar (Nazul), Gwalior, vide order dated 21.11.1978, passed in case No. 560A/68-74-75, declared the respondents as encroachers over the land in question.
State Of H P And Ors vs Punra Devi on 24 March, 2015
Prafulla C. Pant, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 6.3.2013, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 7879 of 2012-H whereby the High Court has disposed of said writ petition allowing the respondent (writ petitioner), who is Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre, Chori, to the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Hardeeppur. The review petition filed by the appellants before the High Court has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2014. The same is also challenged before us. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one turned up on behalf of the respondent even after sufficient service reported on her.
State Of M.P vs Rakesh Mishra on 23 March, 2015
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. Leave granted in both the matters. 2. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), disposing of Criminal Revision Petition Nos.636/2007, 610/2007 and 566/2007 which were filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the impugned judgment the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has allowed the three revision petitions, setting aside the orders of the First Additional Judge/ Special Judge, Indore, for framing charges against three accused persons, namely, Rakesh Mishra, Gyanendra Singh Jadon and Sajid Dhanani. It may be noted that the State has assailed the impugned judgment only against Rakesh Mishra and G.S. Jadon.
M/S Millennium Wires P Ltd vs State Trading Corp. Of India Ltd & ... on 23 March, 2015
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted in both the matters. These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2013 in RFA (OS) No.142/2013 and judgment and order dated 10.12.2013 in RFA (OS) No.139/2013, passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by which the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. RFA (OS) Nos.142/2013 and 139/2013 were filed by M/s. Millenium Wires (P) Ltd. and the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., respectively, against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Original Suit, being CS (OS) No.545/2012. The learned Single Judge rejected the plaint of the appellants herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since these appeals are arising from same factual matrix and involve same questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Panna Lal & Ors vs State Of M.P on 23 March, 2015
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 10.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Criminal Appeal No.1256 of 1997, affirming the judgment and order dated 11.12.1997 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar in Sessions Case No.46 of 1996. 2. The present Appellant Nos.1 to 4 and one juvenile were alleged to have committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code by causing murder of one Ramkunwarbai and for having caused hurt to Girdhari (PW-1), Satyanarayan (PW-2) and Hariram (PW-5). At the stage of trial the case of juvenile was separated and directed to be dealt with by the Juvenile Court. The present appellants were convicted for the offences with which they were charged and sentenced to suffer (i) one year simple imprisonment under Section 147 IPC (ii) two years simple imprisonment under Section 148 IPC (iii) life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to suffer simple imprisonment of one year and (iv) simple imprisonment of six months under Section 323/149 IPC. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District Judge having been affirmed by the judgment under appeal, the same is under challenge in this appeal by special leave filed by the present appellants.
Deepa @ Deep Chand & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2015
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.559-DB of 2000 affirming the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in Sessions Case No.54 of 1999. 2. According to the prosecution, one Amar Singh had two brothers, namely, Data Ram and Sheo Chand. Amar Singh had four sons, viz., Mauji Ram, Roop Chand @ Roopa, Ram Singh and Deepa Chand @ Deepa. Deep Chand @ Deepa and Sukhbir Singh, son of Mauji Ram, are the present appellants, who were tried and stand convicted for the offence of murder of Roop Chand @ Roopa. Said Roop Chand @ Roopa was unmarried and aged about 80 years on the date of incident and was residing with Randhir Singh, grandson of the above-named Sheo Chand. It is alleged that Roop Chand owned agricultural land which was being cultivated by said Randhir Singh, which fact was not to the liking of his brother Deep Chand @ Deepa and the immediate family.
Ramesh vs Harbans Nagpal & Ors on 23 March, 2015
Uday Umesh Lalit J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals challenge the order dated 14.1.2010 in CMM No.846 of 2008 and order dated 2.6.2010 in Review Petition No.58 of 2010 arising out of the said order dated 14.1.2010 in CMM No.846 of 2008, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 3. The appellant under an Agreement of sale dated 27.5.1998 had purchased the property described in the document as under: "Vacant roof of Ground Floor to Top Floor measuring 106 Sq. yds. Out of Property No.1/51, built on Plot No.A/9, out of Khasra No.163 with rights to construct up to Top floor, stairs leading from Ground Floor to Top Floor, situated at Nirankari Colony, Pardhan Marg, Delhi-110009, and bounded as under:-
Kedari Lal vs State Of Mp on 23 March, 2015
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. 1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2006 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of conviction recorded by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Shiv Puri, Madhya Pradesh in Special Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1996 against the appellant herein. 2. The appellant joined the services of Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh on 15.07.1978 as Assistant Engineer and thereafter served in various capacities. According to the prosecution, during the period of 15.07.1978 to 9.02.1994, the appellant had earned total amount of Rs.3,86, 966/- as public servant but he was found to be in possession of assets worth Rs.7,97,243/- at the end of that period and as such he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.4,08,077/-. Accordingly Crime No. 17 of 1994 was registered on 9.02.1994 by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Sanghthan for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act, for short). After conducting appropriate investigation chargesheet was filed and the appellant was accordingly charged and tried.
Anirudh Kumar vs Municipal Corp. Of Delhi & Ors on 20 March, 2015
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 857 of 2010 in and by which, the High Court, while dismissing the appeal held that this matter does not fall within its writ jurisdiction which requires determination by the High Court. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under:- 2. The appellant is residing on the second floor of D-1 Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Dr. Navin Dang and Dr. Manju Dang, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-owners') initially started a Pathological Lab in the name of 'Dr. Dang's Diagnostic Centre' in the year 1995 on the basement and ground floor of the concerned building and later on, in the year 2005-2006 the first floor of the premises was also purchased by them from its owner Mrs. Shanti Chatterjee whereby they expanded the activities of the Pathological Lab even to mezzanine floor and first floor by installing heavy medical equipments to make it fully equipped with the latest technology. When the Diagnostic Centre was started, it employed about 50 people and installed 25 Air Conditioners, two diesel generator sets of 25 KVA and 40 KVA each in the set-back area of the building along with kerosene oil tanks, gas cylinders and electric panels. There was a major parking problem in and around the vicinity of the Diagnostic center since a large number of patients visited the centre every day.
© 2012 District Court Bar Association - Thalassery. People behind the website


phone : 04902341278, Fax no 0490 2323537,