Case Summary
The plaintiff, Amer Anis @ Musthafa Thekkethil, is seeking an interim mandatory injunction against Vodafone Idea Limited and its officials regarding the reactivation of his mobile number '9048899999'. He claims that the defendants unjustly disconnected his service and demanded a large payment to reactivate the number, which he has owned for over 25 years.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition for an interim mandatory injunction, stating that the petitioner did not establish a strong case. The court deemed there would be no irreparable harm if the petition was not allowed.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaintiff did not establish a strong case for the relief sought.
The court found that the plaintiff did not establish a strong case for the relief sought.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the mobile phone number cannot be considered as under the ownership and possession of the defendant. However, on appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that petitioner has not established strong case for the relief of interim mandatory injunction.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the above petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Amer Anis @ Musthafa Thekkethil
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Muhammed Roshan
- Party Age
- 22
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vodafone Idea Limited
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- General Manager (Customer Care), Vodafone Idea Limited
Plaintiffs Documents
Printout of e-mail showing payment of Rs. 7,000/-, Notice of conciliation issued to the plaintiff, Printout of email showing overdue amount of Rs. 8,826.66/-, Legal notice issued to the defendant demanding reactivation, Copy of certificate issued to the plaintiff from Poonithura Village Office.
Defendants Documents
True Copy of Customer Application form, Copy of order issued by Department of Telecommunications, Government of India.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P Thomas Geeverghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Amrutha K P
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sagar Roshan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P Sathisan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Samuel Shibu
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Abhiram Sunish
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Soorya Mariya Kurian
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aafina Santhosh
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for mandatory injunction to reactivate the mobile services or permit porting.
Evidence:
On appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that petitioner has not established strong case for the relief of interim mandatory injunction.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Email Printout
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the payment of Rs. 7,000/- by the plaintiff to the account of the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Conciliation Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice of conciliation issued to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Email Printout
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the overdue amount of Rs. 8,826.66/- owed by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Printout of lawyer’s notice issued to the defendant demanding reactivation of the plaintiff’s mobile number.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Certificate Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the certificate issued to the plaintiff from Poonithura Village Office.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Customer application form
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
True Copy of Customer Application form with terms and conditions of Vodafone Mobile Network.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Government Order Copy
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of order issued by Department of Telecommunications, Government of India.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Unfair trade practices
Case Code
O.S.NO.
Case Code Year
2024