Case Summary
The case involves multiple plaintiffs including Anilal Govindan and Sajeev Kumar C against several defendants including WE 1 Digital Communications. The plaintiffs filed a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed an interim application but rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds under the Civil Procedure Code.
The plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds under the Civil Procedure Code.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds under the Civil Procedure Code.
The plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds under the Civil Procedure Code.
Supporting Evidence
The court found that the plaint did not meet the requirements as stipulated in the Code.
Judgment Evidence:
Plaint is rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Anilal Govindan
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sajeev Kumar C
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vimal Prasad Jain
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rajesh Kumar
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rajan Samuel
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- WE 1 Digital Communications, Limited Liability Partnership
- Relation
- represented by its Managing Director
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Cable TV Operators Association (COA)
- Relation
- represented by its President
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Kerala Commincators Cable Limited
- Relation
- represented by its Managing Director
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Kerala Vision Broadband Limited
- Relation
- represented by its Managing Director
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Biju Mohanan Nair
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dr. V N Sankarjee
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- V N Madhusoodhanan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- R Udaya Jyothi
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M M Vinod
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M Suseela
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Keerthi B Chandran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Vijayan Pillai P K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C Purushothaman Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sandeep Gopalakrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jinnu Sara George
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Zafar Antonio
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anju Davis K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Edna K Shibu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K H Sakir
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The suit was rejected.
Evidence:
Plaint is rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Anilal Govindan et al vs WE 1 Digital Communications et al regarding a civil suit.
Case Code Year
Case between Anilal Govindan et al vs WE 1 Digital Communications et al regarding a civil suit.