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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 432/2023

Case between Miczo kft et al vs Dhaneesh Yasodharan regarding realization of money

Court
II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi. K. Dinamany.
Order Date
2024-09-07
Duration
approximately-3 years 22 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Miczo kft and MPW Workforce Private Limited, are seeking compensation from the defendant, Dhaneesh Yasodharan, for breach of an employment undertaking. The defendant was employed by the plaintiffs but absconded and took up another job in violation of the agreement.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed that the defendant must pay the plaintiffs a total of Rs. 8,25,715/- along with interest, for breaching the employment agreement. The defendant's assets are also liable to satisfy the decree.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendant shall pay Rs. 8,25,715/- along with interest at specified rates.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs established a case supported by evidence showing that the defendant breached the terms of the employment undertaking.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed as follows: 1) Defendant shall pay Rs.8,25,715/- (Rupees Eight lakhs twenty five thousand seven hundred and fifteen only) along with interest @12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% from the date of decree till payment or realization.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Miczo kft (Age not specified years) 2800 Tatabánya, Szent Borbála út 29/a. Hungary MPW Workforce Private Limited (Age not specified years) Building No:16/251 A, Near Perumamattom Tower, Ambalapady-Pinermunda Road, Kunnathunad, Ernakulam-683565

Defendants

Dhaneesh Yasodharan (36 years) Dhaneesh Bhavan, Perungala P.O, Kayamkulam, Alappuzha, Pin: 670559 Kerala, India

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs sought recovery of a compensation sum of Rs. 8,25,715/- due to the breach of contract by the defendant.
Evidence:
Defendant shall pay Rs.8,25,715/- (Rupees Eight lakhs twenty five thousand seven hundred and fifteen only) along with interest @12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% from the date of decree till payment or realization, as the case may be, to plaintiffs.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the costs incurred in the lawsuit.
Evidence:
Plaintiffs are also entitled to realize the costs of the suit.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the authority of the representative of the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Employment Undertaking
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document contains the terms agreed upon by the defendant in relation to his employment with the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Air Tickets
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides evidence of the travel arrangements made for the defendant by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Work Visa and Residence Permit
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is essential for validating the employment and residency of the defendant in Hungary.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Returned Registered Cover
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the evidence of the legal notice sent to the defendant which was returned unclaimed.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is the legal notice issued to the defendant regarding the breach of contract.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam, Kerala
Case Filed
Tue, 02/16/2021 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases