Case Summary
Canara Bank is the plaintiff in this case, represented by its Branch Manager. The defendants include Mannumpurathu Dye works and two individuals, Sunilkumar M A and Anilkumar M A, all associated with the same business.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was finally heard on December 16, 2025, and was rejected due to the balance court fees not being remitted by the plaintiff.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Balance Court Fees not remitted.
Judgment Evidence:
Suit is rejected.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Canara Bank
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mannumpurathu Dye works
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sunilkumar M A
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anilkumar M A
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv. Jayakrishnan R
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv. James Sibi
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv. Nikshitha Annie Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Suit is rejected.
Evidence:
Suit is rejected.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Canara Bank vs Mannumpurathu Dye works et al regarding suit rejection.
Case Code Year
Case between Canara Bank vs Mannumpurathu Dye works et al regarding suit rejection.