Case Summary
The plaintiffs, a partnership firm and an associated foundation, filed a suit against the defendant for the recovery of an advance amount paid for work on a Sewage Treatment Plant. The defendant was accused of not performing the work despite receiving payment.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs a sum of 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) with interest at 6% per annum from 20-09-2013 till realisation and costs of the suit.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the defendant is required to refund the advance amount paid, along with interest. The plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to prove the payment, while the defendant failed to substantiate their claims of having utilized the funds.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved payment of the advance amount and the defendant failed to provide any evidence of performance or utilization.
The plaintiffs proved payment of the advance amount and the defendant failed to provide any evidence of performance or utilization.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs’ case is supported by documentary proof of payment and consistent oral evidence. The defendant’s version is unsupported and contradicted by its own witnesses.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs a sum of 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only). 2. The amount shall carry interest at 6 % per annum from 20-09-2013 till realisation. 3. The plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the suit.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Deecee International Trading Corporation
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- DC Kizhakemuri Foundation
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- ION Techniques
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Notarized Power of Attorney, Bank statement evidencing transfer
Defendants Documents
Email communications, feasibility reports
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Thomas P Makil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Bobby John K A
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Philson Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought recovery of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the defendant.
Evidence:
The Court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of the advance amount.
Relief Type:
Interest
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Interest at 6% per annum from 20-09-2013 till realization.
Evidence:
Hence, the amount shall carry interest at 6 % per annum from 20-09-2013 till realization.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the suit.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Notarized Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed by the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Notarized Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed by the second plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Notarized copy of the partnership Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of the partnership structure of the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Acknowledgment of Registration of firms
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of registration for the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Certificate of Registration
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of the second plaintiff’s registration as a society.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Feasibility report on Sewage Treatment Plant
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted by the defendant to the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Techno Commercial offer
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted by the defendant to the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Office copy of the work order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original work order issued to the defendant, relevant to the contract.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Statement of Account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of the payment made by the first plaintiff to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Office Copy of the revised work Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Revised work order acknowledging changes to the original contract.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Email and Report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence presented by the defendant regarding project discussions.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Email and its Acknowledgment
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence to support the defendant’s claims about project timelines.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Email and the revised Officer
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Related to negotiations about the work order.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Email and the revised Officer
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Further correspondence regarding the project.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Work Order
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Original work order document referenced by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Emails
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Series of emails relevant to project execution claims.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Email and the minutes of the meeting
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Meeting records related to project execution.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Email and its acknowledgment email
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Correspondence further supporting the defendant’s claims.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type:
Emails and its acknowledgment email
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Further correspondence tied to the project.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type:
Email
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Additional evidence submitted by defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B10
Document Type:
Emails
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Emails pertinent to the ongoing discussions.
Reference:
Ext.B11
Document Type:
Emails
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Sequence of emails relevant for the defense.
Reference:
Ext.B12
Document Type:
Emails
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Series of emails concerning project communication.
Reference:
Ext.B13
Document Type:
Emails and the revamping proposal for the 60 KLD
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Proposal referenced in context of project variation.
Reference:
Ext.B14
Document Type:
Emails
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Further emails submitted during defense.
Reference:
Ext.B15
Document Type:
The trailing emails
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Continuity of communication on project updates.
Reference:
Ext.B16
Document Type:
Email and the reply
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Reply correspondence linked to defense evidence.
Reference:
Ext.B17
Document Type:
Trail emails, work order, and revised offer
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Related documents showcasing project changes.
Reference:
Ext.B18
Document Type:
Show cause notice issued by the Pollution Control Board
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Notice regarding compliance related to the project.
Reference:
Ext.B19
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between Deecee International Trading Corporation, Ravi Deecee vs ION Techniques regarding realization of advance amount
Case Code Year
Case between Deecee International Trading Corporation, Ravi Deecee vs ION Techniques regarding realization of advance amount