Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 831/2021

Case between Muhammed Nazir et al vs M/s GTL Infrastructure Ltd et al regarding rejection of plaint.

Court
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2026-01-14
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Muhammed Nazir and Rukiya Nazir, filed a suit against the defendants, M/s GTL Infrastructure Ltd and others, under the Code of Civil Procedure. The case involved a judgment where the plaint was rejected due to the balance court fee not being remitted.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaint due to the balance court fee not being remitted, vacating all interim orders.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaint due to the balance court fee not being remitted, vacating all interim orders.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaint was incomplete due to non-remittance of court fees.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that the plaint was incomplete due to non-remittance of court fees.
Supporting Evidence
The court found that the plaint was incomplete due to non-remittance of court fees.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Muhammed Nazir
Party Age
75
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Rukiya Nazir
Party Age
69
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
M/s GTL Infrastructure Ltd
Relation
represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Manoj Tirodkar
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
N Balasubramanyan
Party Age
65
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Milind Naik
Party Age
65
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Mohammed Siyad
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Gia Mathai Kandathil
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaint was rejected due to balance court fee not remitted.
Evidence:
Hence plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Muhammed Nazir et al vs M/s GTL Infrastructure Ltd et al regarding rejection of plaint.
Case Code Year
Case between Muhammed Nazir et al vs M/s GTL Infrastructure Ltd et al regarding rejection of plaint.

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Thu, 01/01/2026 - 12:00
To
Wed, 01/21/2026 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Garden View Apartment owners Association vs Ansal River Dale owners Association et al regarding Restoration Petition
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Shanoj R vs Joseph Augustin et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s Indo Quartz vs M/s Ray Engineering Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding petition under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure.
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. Canton Residency Pvt. Ltd. vs Kalamassery Municipality regarding dismissal of suit
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Mrs. Julie Sebastian vs SREECHAND SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. regarding settlement of claims.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won