Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 619/2023

Case between B.Unnikrishnan vs Santhivila Dinesh regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
THE I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Padmakumar.G.
Order Date
2024-01-27
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

B.Unnikrishnan, a renowned director, has filed a suit against fellow director Santhivila Dinesh for publishing defamatory news that harmed his reputation. The suit seeks a permanent injunction to prevent further defamatory publications.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, restraining him from making any further defamatory publications about the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also awarded costs of the suit.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from publishing defamatory news.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaint claim.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed by a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from publishing or spreading out or causing to publish, telecast or spread out any news or matters concerning the plaintiff and that will affects his goodwill and reputation.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

B.Unnikrishnan (55 years years) M/s RD Illuminations LLP, House No. 179, 7th Cross, Giri Nagar, Kadavanthra P.O, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 020

Defendants

Santhivila Dinesh (62 years years) Madhavi Nivas, ENRA B/33 (1), Elangath Nagar, Valiyavila, Thirumala P.O, Thriuvananthapuram – 695 006

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendant, his men and agents from publishing or spreading any news or matters concerning the plaintiff that affects his goodwill and reputation.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed by a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from publishing or spreading out or causing to publish, telecast or spread out any news or matters concerning the plaintiff and that will affects his goodwill and reputation.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Pen Drive
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Contains the defamatory news item published by the defendant in the YouTube channel with certificate under section 65 B of the Evidence Act.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Transcript
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Transcript of the defamatory news item published by the defendant in his YouTube channel.
Reference:
Ext.A2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases