Case Summary
This case involves M/s. Sunitha Sales & Service (P) Ltd. suing Amal Kishore T.G. for damages due to his abrupt termination of employment and failure to return company property. The plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs.4,25,760/- for losses incurred.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Recovery of Rs.4,25,760/- and costs of the suit
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court partially decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to recover Rs.4,25,760/- and costs from the defendant. The plaintiff's evidence was deemed sufficient to establish the claim.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff provided credible evidence for the loss suffered.
The plaintiff provided credible evidence for the loss suffered.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff provided credible evidence for the loss suffered.
The plaintiff provided credible evidence for the loss suffered.
Supporting Evidence
The unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. A1 to A4 established his case as pleaded by him.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed in part as follows; 1. The plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.4,25,760/- (Rupee Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Only) from the defendant and his assets. 2. The plaintiff is entitled to realize costs of the suit from the defendant and from his assets.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- M/s. Sunitha Sales & Service (P) Ltd.
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mr. Karthik Job
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mr. V.R. Vamanan
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Amal Kishore T.G.
- Party Age
- 29
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Power of Attorney, Original of the appointment order issued to the defendant, Original of the indemnity bond executed, Original of the Delivery Note issued to the defendant.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.R. Vinod
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.S. Latha
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Aswin Venugopal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Kurian Mazie
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.4,25,760/- from the defendant and his assets.
Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed in part as follows; 1.The plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.4,25,760/- (Rupee Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Only) from the defendant and his assets.
Relief Type:
Cost of Suit
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize costs of the suit from the defendant and from his assets.
Evidence:
2.The plaintiff is entitled to realize costs of the suit from the defendant and from his assets.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Power of Attorney dated 05.02.2025 establishing the authority of the plaintiff's representative.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Appointment Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of the appointment order issued by the plaintiff company to the defendant, dated 25.11.2021.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Indemnity Bond
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of the indemnity bond executed between the plaintiff company and defendant, dated 01.12.2021.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Delivery Note
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of the Delivery Note dated 15.06.2022 issued to the defendant by the plaintiff company.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between M/s. Sunitha Sales & Service (P) Ltd. vs Amal Kishore T.G. regarding damages and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between M/s. Sunitha Sales & Service (P) Ltd. vs Amal Kishore T.G. regarding damages and mandatory injunction