Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.300/2024

Case between M/s Kovalam Resort (Private Limited) vs K. Usha Kumari regarding recovery of money

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-10-18
Duration
approximately-2 years 5 months
Case Code No.
300
Case Closed
Sat, 10/18/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

M/s Kovalam Resort (Private Limited) is seeking recovery of a security deposit from K. Usha Kumari resulting from a lease agreement for a residential building. The defendant did not return the deposit after the lease ended, leading the plaintiff to file this suit.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit is dismissed as the court found insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's claims regarding the lease agreement and the right to recover the deposit. No costs were awarded.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is dismissed as the court found insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's claims regarding the lease agreement and the right to recover the deposit. No costs were awarded.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish a binding contractual relationship with respect to the recovery claim.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has not pleaded or proved how it is entitled to recover the alleged advance amount said to have been paid by its predecessor.

Judgment Evidence:

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

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M/s Kovalam Resort (Private Limited)
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
K. Usha Kumari
Party Age
60
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors, Statement of Account, Copy of the letter, Original reply, Copy of the advocate notice, Original reply notice
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. K. Murlidharan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Jaideep G. Nair
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Arun.G
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Plaintiff sought recovery of ₹28,925/- from the defendant.
Evidence:
In the light of discussions in the forgoing point, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for against the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Resolution
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors authorizing representation.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Statement of Account
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Statement of accounts showing payments made by the plaintiff company.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the letter dated demanding repayment from the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Reply
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original reply from the defendant admitting the transaction but claiming amounts due.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Advocate Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of advocate notice demanding repayment of the amount along with interest.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original reply notice from the defendant raising contentions.
Reference:
Ext.A6

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
2024

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 05/01/2013 - 12:00
Case Closed
Sat, 10/18/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

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