Case Summary
The plaintiff, Arun Kumar A.H., is seeking a declaration that no contractual relationship exists between him and the defendant, Deekshit Dinesh, regarding an employment visa. The defendant accused the plaintiff and a deceased individual of cheating after a payment was made for a visa that was not arranged.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Declaration of no valid contract and permanent prohibitory injunction against raising claims.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed that there was no valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for any employment visa arrangement. It also issued a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff successfully proved that he had no contractual dealings with the defendant or the deceased regarding the visa.
The plaintiff successfully proved that he had no contractual dealings with the defendant or the deceased regarding the visa.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff successfully proved that he had no contractual dealings with the defendant or the deceased regarding the visa.
The plaintiff successfully proved that he had no contractual dealings with the defendant or the deceased regarding the visa.
Supporting Evidence
The unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 established his case as pleaded by him. In the absence of any countervailing evidence to contradict these proof of plaint claim and Exhibits, I learn that same remains uncontroverted and accordingly admitted.
Judgment Evidence:
A decree is passed declaring that there was no valid contract or transactions in existence between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding arrangement of any employment visa for employment in Canada for any purpose whatsoever, of the defendant.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Arun Kumar A.H.
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Deekshit Dinesh
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of complaint dated 28.10.2022 submitted by the defendant before Assistant Commissioner of Police Kochi, Certified copy of complaint dated 22.11.2022 submitted by the defendant before the Station House Officer, Ernakulam Town South Police Station.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C.S. Manu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dilu Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C.A. Anupaman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T.B. Sivaprasad
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C.Y. Vijayakumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Manju E.R.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anandhu Satheesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Alint Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A decree is passed declaring that there was no valid contract or transactions in existence between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding arrangement of any employment visa for employment in Canada.
Evidence:
A decree is passed declaring that there was no valid contract or transactions in existence between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding arrangement of any employment visa for employment in Canada for any purpose whatsoever, of the defendant.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed restraining the defendant from raising any claim against the plaintiff for payment of any amount.
Evidence:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed restraining the defendant from raising any claim against the plaintiff for payment of any amount, in the absence of any valid contract or transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant before any forum or authorities.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize costs of the suit from defendant.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize costs of the suit from defendant and from his assets.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was submitted by the defendant before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kochi, and was marked in evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified copy of complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was submitted by the defendant to the Station House Officer, Ernakulam Town South Police Station against the plaintiff and was marked in evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
The unrebutted oral testimony of the plaintiff established his case.
Reference:
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 Arun Kumar A.H. vs Deekshit Dinesh regarding Declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Arun Kumar A.H. vs Deekshit Dinesh regarding Declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction