Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1085/2022

Case between M/S Ecorgy Solutions Private Limited vs Mary Suma. M regarding realisation of money

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-11-07
Duration
approximately-2 years 6 months 18 days
Case Code No.
1085
Case Closed
Fri, 11/07/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

M/S Ecorgy Solutions Private Limited filed a suit against Mary Suma for failing to serve her one-month notice period after resignation, leading to losses for the company. The court examined the employment agreement and the circumstances of the resignation.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a binding contract due to inconsistencies in the evidence presented. Thus, the court dismissed the suit.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a binding contract due to inconsistencies in the evidence presented. Thus, the court dismissed the suit.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff could not prove the existence of a valid and binding contract.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff could not prove the existence of a valid and binding contract.
Supporting Evidence
In the absence of a properly executed Employment Agreement and in view of the inconsistencies and lack of proper evidence, this Court is unable to hold that the plaintiff has proved the existence of a valid and binding contract or that any actionable breach was committed by the defendant.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M/S Ecorgy Solutions Private Limited
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mary Suma. M
Party Age
32
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Appointment letter, Employment agreement, E-mail resignation letter, Legal notice.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Nair Ajay Krishnan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Vishnu.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Vishnu Nair
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Vaisakh Subodhan
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought to recover ₹57,000 from the defendant for loss due to breach of employment terms.
Evidence:
The court observes that the plaintiff has failed to establish its claim for recovery of ₹57,000/-.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Appointment Letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence to support the employment relationship between plaintiff and defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Employment Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence related to the terms and conditions of employment.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: E-mail resignation letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked to show the defendant's submission of resignation.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: E-mail resignation letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked to evidence the acceptance of the defendant's resignation.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: E-mail Termination letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked to indicate the notification sent to the defendant regarding her absence.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Copy of the legal notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked to substantiate the legal notice issued to the defendant for breach.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Original Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked to show the defendant's response to the legal notice.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Certified true copy of the board resolution
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked to show the authorization of PW1 to represent the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: E-mail Appointment letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence regarding the employment offer sent to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: E-mail acceptance of appointment letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked to evidence the acceptance of the appointment letter by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A10

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2022

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Thu, 05/12/2022 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 11/07/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 11/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won