Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S.No.911/2023

Case between The Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs Chackochan.M.J. regarding court fee balance and representation

Court
II Additional Munsiff
Judge
Smt. Maneesha K Bhadran
Order Date
2024-01-17
Duration
Case Code No.
911
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The Karnataka Bank Ltd. filed a suit against Chackochan.M.J. for recovery matters. The plaintiff was absent during the hearing, leading to the court's decision to reject the plaint.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to pay the requisite court fees.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to pay the requisite court fees.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not present themselves in court and did not pay the required court fees.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff did not present themselves in court and did not pay the required court fees.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff absent. No representation. Balance Court Fee not paid.

Judgment Evidence:

Balance Court Fee not paid. Plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
The Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Chackochan.M.J.
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.P.Sujesh Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Keerthi.K. Narayan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Shalu.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Aswin.B
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Jeevan Joy
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The suit was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC due to absence of the plaintiff and non-payment of court fee.
Evidence:
Balance Court Fee not paid. Plaintiff rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.NO.
Case Code Year
2023

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 01/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Wed, 01/31/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India vs Thanima Boutique regarding suit under Section 26 Order IV, VI and VII of The Code of Civil Procedure.
II Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Uco Bank vs Smt. Limitha Melbin et al regarding withdrawal of suit
II Additional Munsiff Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Union Bank of India vs Ms. Beena Joseph regarding the suit for relief.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) vs Vineesh Kumar TV et al regarding Settlement of Dispute
Court of Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Abdul Sattar vs Sudarshana Shenoy et al regarding Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Defendant Won