Case Summary
The plaintiff, Pallickamalil Cinema Company Private Limited, represented by its director, Aby Tom a Nicholson, sought relief regarding a building. The defendant did not appear, and the plaintiff stated that the matter has become infructuous as possession of the building was handed over.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as not pressed based on the plaintiff's submission that the matter has become infructuous.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Hence recording his submission, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Pallickamalil Cinema Company Private Limited
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Gopalakrishnan Pukalakkattu Balakrishnan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s. Abad Builders Private Limited
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Job Abraham
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P.S. Sreeprasad
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ajay V. Anand
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
The suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Evidence:
the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
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 Pallickamalil Cinema Company Private Limited vs Gopalakrishnan Pukalakkattu Balakrishnan et al regarding dismissal of the suit.
Case Code Year
Case between Pallickamalil Cinema Company Private Limited vs Gopalakrishnan Pukalakkattu Balakrishnan et al regarding dismissal of the suit.