Case Summary
P. Madhavan Nair, a contractor, has sued M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd for failing to honor a contract and not providing necessary government permissions. The plaintiff claims that the defendant unilaterally cancelled the contract and did not return the bank guarantee amount.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff a total amount of 4,42,750/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay ₹4,42,750 along with future interest for failing to fulfill the contract terms. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff's evidence was uncontested as the defendant was ex parte, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff's claims were valid.
The plaintiff's evidence was uncontested as the defendant was ex parte, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff's claims were valid.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
From the uncontested evidence of the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the case of the plaintiff stands proved.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: I. The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff a total amount of 4,42,750/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit, till its realisation from the defendant and its assets.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P. Madhavan Nair
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Notarised Power of Attorney, True Copy of the Legal Notice, E-mail Communication Containing work Order, Certificate under Section 65(B) of Evidence Act, Copy of the demand draft bearing No. 001195, Photocopy of the letter, Copy of the receipt issued by Kottayam Municipality.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.S Harihara Puthran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Bhanu Thilak
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P. Sathisan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aswin P Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Krishna G Nath
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sindhya A.K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff a total amount of ₹4,42,750 with future interest.
Evidence:
The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff a total amount of 4,42,750/ (Four lakhs forty two thousand seven hundred and fifty Rupees only) with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit, till its realisation from the defendant and its assets.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff shall be at liberty to realise the amount from the defendant and its assets if not paid.
Evidence:
If the defendant does not pay the amount as ordered, the plaintiff shall be at the liberty to realise the same from the defendant and its assets.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Evidence:
Considering the nature of the suit and circumstances surrounding the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Notarised Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was marked as evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
True copy of the Legal Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was marked as evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
E-mail Communication Containing work Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was marked as evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Certificate under Section 65(B) of Evidence Act
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was marked as evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type:
Copy of the demand draft bearing No. 001195
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was marked as subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Photocopy of the letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was marked as evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Copy of the receipt issued by Kottayam Municipality
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was marked as subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A6
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 P. Madhavan Nair vs M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd regarding realisation of money
Case Code Year
Case between P. Madhavan Nair vs M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd regarding realisation of money