Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No.1036/2023

Case between M/s Balanand Enterprises vs Bombay Light House et al regarding Court Fee Payment

Court
II Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Maneesha K Bhadran
Order Date
2024-03-02
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

M/s Balanand Enterprises filed a suit against Bombay Light House and others. The court rejected the suit due to the absence of the plaintiff and non-payment of balance court fee.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit due to the absence of the plaintiff and non-payment of the balance court fee.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit due to the absence of the plaintiff and non-payment of the balance court fee.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was absent and did not pay the necessary court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff was absent and did not pay the necessary court fee.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff absent. No representation. Balance Court Fee not paid.

Judgment Evidence:

Plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M/s Balanand Enterprises
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Bombay Light House
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Pulikkottil Kunjan Joju
Party Age
55
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Jincy Joju
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
P. Rahul
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Ashwin Antony
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Roopkumar.G
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Arya Anil
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Suit filed under Section 26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure.
Evidence:
Plaintiff absent. No representation. 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
Case between M/s Balanand Enterprises vs Bombay Light House et al regarding Court Fee Payment
Case Code Year
Case between M/s Balanand Enterprises vs Bombay Light House et al regarding Court Fee Payment

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Fri, 03/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Sun, 03/31/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T.O Abraham et al vs T.O Aleyas et al regarding settlement of the suit
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Prakash Pai, et al vs Saju, et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Nithya vs Babu et al regarding Dismissal of Listed Case
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kunju Bava vs C. A Abdulla regarding specific performance of agreement and consequential reliefs
The Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Ammini M.N et al vs Sindhu et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won