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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 1021/2024

Case between M/s PromoteN vs Abdul Vahab E regarding supply of steel rods

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-08-05
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

M/s PromoteN, a partnership firm, supplied steel rods to Abdul Vahab E, a building contractor. The plaintiff seeks to recover the value of the supplied materials due to a billing error and a shortage in the returned materials.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the petition for an arrest warrant, concluding that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims regarding the defendant's potential flight from justice.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish reasonable probability that the defendant intended to flee to avoid judgment.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

M/s PromoteN (Age not specified years) 4/270, NH Bye road, Cheranalloor, Ernakulam - 682 034 Mahaesh (46 years) Arjun P.J (26 years) Poonoor house, Asamannoor, Kunnathunad, Ernakulam - 683 549

Defendants

Abdul Vahab E (Age not specified years) 'Fathimma', Sreevilas Lane, House no. TC 4/635, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 003

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The petitioner sought an arrest warrant against the respondent.
Evidence:
The conditions enumerated under Rule 1 of Order 39 are not satisfied. Thus, the point is found against the petitioner.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Power of attorney executed by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Ledger Copy
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the ledger of the plaintiff pertaining to the account of the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the lawyer notice issued to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Postal receipt related to notices sent.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment card related to notices sent.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Test Result
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
True copy of the test result issued by the Government Engineering College, Trivandrum.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Undertaking
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
True copy of the undertaking issued by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Quotation
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
True copy of the quotation.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Another Undertaking
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
True copy of the undertaking issued by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Invoice
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
True copy of the Invoice number JSSL24/21232131.
Reference:
Ext.B5

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases