Case Summary
Capital Finserve Ltd. filed a suit against Akhil Varghese, Blessy Sabu M S, and Binu Mathai concerning the non-remittance of balance court fees. The suit was ultimately rejected by the court.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the balance court fee was not remitted, leading to the rejection of the suit.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Not available
Judgment Evidence:
Suit rejected under order 7 Rule 11.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Deepa Nair
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- W/o.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Akhil Varghese
- Party Age
- 25
- Relation
- S/o.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Blessy Sabu M S
- Party Age
- 25
- Relation
- W/o.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Binu Mathai
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- S/o.
Plaintiffs Documents
Not mentioned
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sabu Antony
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Joby Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Kabir U
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Suit rejected under order 7 Rule 11 due to balance court fee not remitted.
Evidence:
Balance Court Fee not remitted. Since, Balance Court Fee not remitted. Suit rejected under order 7 Rule 11.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Capital Finserve Ltd. vs Akhil Varghese, Blessy Sabu M S, Binu Mathai regarding court fee remittance
Case Code Year
Case between Capital Finserve Ltd. vs Akhil Varghese, Blessy Sabu M S, Binu Mathai regarding court fee remittance