Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 571 / 2020

Case between M/s Sinergia Media Labs LLP vs M/s Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany.
Order Date
2025-07-25
Duration
approximately-5 years 11 months
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, M/s Sinergia Media Labs LLP, filed a suit against the defendant, M/s Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, seeking protection against eviction and service disruption. The case revolves around alleged non-payment of rent during the COVID-19 pandemic and the plaintiff's apprehension of unlawful eviction.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from forcefully evicting the plaintiff and from discontinuing essential services. The judgment acknowledges the relationship between the parties and the legality surrounding eviction processes.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against forceful eviction and service discontinuation
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from forcefully evicting the plaintiff and from discontinuing essential services. The judgment acknowledges the relationship between the parties and the legality surrounding eviction processes.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the plaintiff's apprehensions of unlawful eviction were justified and that the plaintiff was entitled to remain in the premises until evicted through due process.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found that the plaintiff's apprehensions of unlawful eviction were justified and that the plaintiff was entitled to remain in the premises until evicted through due process.
Supporting Evidence
It is a settled position of law that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from forcefully evicting the plaintiff from plaint schedule property without due process of law. 2) Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from terminating or discontinuing any of the services which are essential for running the day to day affairs of the office/ work place of the plaintiff company.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M/s Sinergia Media Labs LLP
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Derrick Sebastian
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
M/s Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
CEO
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Certificate of Company incorporation, Original Sublease agreement no: 2700/2019, Certified copy of the resolution
Defendants Documents
True copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Defendant, Certified copy of the Sublease agreement

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Joby Cyriac
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Varghese K Paul
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Ammu Teresa
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Lakshmi P S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against forceful eviction.
Evidence:
Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from forcefully evicting the plaintiff from plaint schedule property without due process of law.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the termination of essential services.
Evidence:
Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from terminating or discontinuing any of the services which are essential for running the day to day affairs of the office/ work place of the plaintiff company.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Original Certificate of Company incorporation
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the legal status of the plaintiff as a limited liability partnership.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Original Certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 1872
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the admissibility of electronic records concerning the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1(a)
Document Type: Original letter of acknowledgment and acceptance of the reconstitution
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document acknowledges the changes in the structure of the plaintiff's entity.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of the resolution
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides proof of decisions made by the plaintiff's company.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Certified copy of resolution containing the seal of the company and its directors
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as an official confirmation of the company's resolutions.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type: Original Sublease agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document outlines the terms under which the plaintiff occupies the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Original of the notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document captures the defendant's communication regarding the claimed waiver of rent.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: True copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document demonstrates the authority and decisions made by the defendant's board.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Certified copy of the Sublease agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document relates to the sublease agreement between the plaintiff and defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B2

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between M/s Sinergia Media Labs LLP vs M/s Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between M/s Sinergia Media Labs LLP vs M/s Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam, Kerala
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sat, 07/25/2020 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Samson T George et al vs Arun Kumar Karerat et al regarding temporary injunction
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Muhammed Rija P.M vs Thrikkakara Municipality regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Partial
Case between Sasi vs Chokli et al regarding Permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Jayan. K.S et al vs M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Benny John et al vs Anivrithan regarding temporary injunction
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won