Case Summary
Mr. Kishore P. George is suing M/s. Singnet Software Solutions Private Ltd and its directors for unpaid salary arrears. The plaintiff claims he is owed 6,52,850/- for his tenure as Project Manager with the company.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is dismissed as the court found it is barred by limitation. The plaintiff did not demonstrate due diligence in his prior proceedings regarding the claim.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the suit is barred by limitation.
The court found that the suit is barred by limitation.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that the suit is barred by limitation.
The court found that the suit is barred by limitation.
Supporting Evidence
It is evidently clear that the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the case at hand. In such circumstance, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs to the suit.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mr. Kishore P. George
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s. SINGNET SOFTWARE SOLLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. Usman P.K
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anas M.K
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Appointment letter & Regulations and conditions for employment, Photocopy of Judgment in WP(c) No. 8257/2022, Conciliation letters.
Defendants Documents
Indemnity Bond.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T. N Suresh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Monsy K.V
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dhanuja Vettathu
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Indu C. Sreekumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Paul K. Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought recovery of salary arrears from the defendants.
Evidence:
It is answered that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is answered that the plaintiff is not entitled to any sum or interest from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Appointment letter & Regulations and conditions for employment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was marked to establish the terms of the plaintiff's employment.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Computer print out of Statement of Account for the period from 01.12.2016 to 01.09.2020
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was subject to objection, but it relates to the salary payments made to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Experience Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is a certificate of the plaintiff's work experience.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter is indicative of the communication related to the plaintiff's employment.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Conduct Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate signifies the plaintiff's conduct during employment.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Photocopy Complaint before Hon’ble District Labour Officer, Ernakulam
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This complaint documents the plaintiff's grievances against the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Photocopy of Judgment in WP(c) No. 8257/2022
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This judgment orders action on the plaintiff's complaint regarding salary non-payment.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Letter issued by District Labour Office
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter details the District Labour Office's communication related to the conciliation meeting.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
True copy of Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice relates to the legal communication regarding salary payment.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt confirms the posting of important documents related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt is additional evidence of correspondence related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A10(a)
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt serves as further proof of communication efforts.
Reference:
Ext.A10(b)
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms the posting of correspondence relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type:
Indemnity Bond
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is produced by the second defendant to contest role and liability regarding the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Mr. Kishore P. George vs M/s. SINGNET SOFTWARE SOLLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD et al regarding salary arrears.
Case Code Year
Case between Mr. Kishore P. George vs M/s. SINGNET SOFTWARE SOLLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD et al regarding salary arrears.