Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 670 / 2021

Case between Saji vs Sheena Farook regarding defamation.

Court
II Additional Munsiff
Judge
Smt. Needi. K. Dinamany
Order Date
2024-10-05
Duration
approximately-3 years 11 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Saji, filed a suit against the defendant, Sheena Farook, for defamation due to false allegations that led to the closure of his workshop. The court found that the defendant acted without reasonable cause, harming the plaintiff's reputation.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed that the defendant must pay the plaintiff ₹2,00,000 for defamation and cover the costs of the suit. The defendant's allegations were found to be false and damaging to the plaintiff's reputation.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Rs.2,00,000 along with interest @12% per annum and costs of the suit
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff provided positive evidence showing that the defendant acted without reasonable cause and made false allegations.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed as follows: 1) Defendant shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) along with interest @12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% from the date of decree till payment or realization.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Saji (45 years) Anthikadu House, Arackal Road, Thevarkad, Varapuzha, Ernakulam

Defendants

Sheena Farook (50 years) Nucleus Rhyne Apartment, Kunnumpuram, Cheranallur, Ernakulam District, Pin- 682024

Reliefs

Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought damages for defamation due to false allegations made by defendant.
Evidence:
Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to damages of 2,00,000 for defamation
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to realize the costs of the suit.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is also entitled to realize the costs of the suit.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Hearing Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of hearing notice issued by the Health officer of the Kochi corporation.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Explanation
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of explanation dated 25.11.2020 submitted by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Judgment
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Copy of judgment in WPC No.21062/2020 dated 20.10.2020.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Legal Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of lawyer notice dated 14.12.2020 issued to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of reply notice dated 23.12.2020 sent to the plaintiff by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A5

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 10/05/2021 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases