Case Summary
Samanyu Sanathanan, the plaintiff, claims unpaid salary from M/s Codea Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and its director for the months of November and December 2020. Despite fulfilling his duties diligently, the plaintiff was denied his entitled salary, prompting him to seek legal recourse.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Rs.80,625 along with interest
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay Rs.80,625 along with interest for unpaid salary. The judgment addressed the plaintiff's claims of unpaid wages and upheld the validity of his employment during the disputed period.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of employment and entitlement to salary.
The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of employment and entitlement to salary.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of employment and entitlement to salary.
The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of employment and entitlement to salary.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff contended that salary cannot be withheld on the ground of non-achievement of targets, since no such condition was fixed at appointment. The allegation that he failed to bring profit is irrelevant and incorrect.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed as follows: Defendants shall pay Rs.80,625/- along with interest on the principle amount of Rs.75,000/- @ 9% from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% from the date of decree till payment or realization.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Samanyu Sanathanan
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s Codea Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jaison Jose Olikkal
- Relation
- Director
Plaintiffs Documents
Notarized Power of Attorney dated 8.12.2021, Order of appointment dated 03.02.2020, Resignation letter dated 29.01.2021, Lawyer notice dated 25.03.2021, Complaint submitted before the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam dated 29.07.2021
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Pramod Kochuthomman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sajeevkumar K Gopal
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff requested recovery of Rs.80,625/- as salary dues.
Evidence:
plaintiff is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.80,625/- with interest on the principle amount of Rs.75,000/- @ 9% from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% from the date of decree till the date of payment or realization.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Notarized Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document served as a legal authority for the plaintiff to act on behalf of himself in the case.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Order of Appointment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document established the employment of the plaintiff by the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Resignation Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter documented the plaintiff's resignation from the defendant's company.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Certificate under section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate verified a legal requirement related to the plaintiff's documents.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type:
Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice demanded payment of the owed salary to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt provided evidence that the lawyer's notice was sent to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Complaint to District Labour Officer
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supported the plaintiff's claims regarding unpaid salary issues raised to authorities.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Reply from District Labour Officer
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This reply indicated the outcome of the complaint made by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Complaint to Development Commissioner
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document reflected another effort by the plaintiff to resolve his salary dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Reply from Development Commissioner
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document documented the response from the Development Commissioner regarding the plaintiff's complaint.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Samanyu Sanathanan vs M/s Codea Technologies Pvt. Ltd. regarding realization of salary
Case Code Year
Case between Samanyu Sanathanan vs M/s Codea Technologies Pvt. Ltd. regarding realization of salary