Case Summary
The petitioners are seeking a temporary prohibitory injunction against the respondents regarding unauthorized construction and possession of property. They claim the respondents engaged in fraudulent transactions related to a construction agreement.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition for a temporary prohibitory injunction was dismissed by the court. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for the injunction.
Key Reasoning:
The court determined that the petitioners did not demonstrate a strong prima facie case for injunctive relief.
The court determined that the petitioners did not demonstrate a strong prima facie case for injunctive relief.
Why Defendant Won:
The court determined that the petitioners did not demonstrate a strong prima facie case for injunctive relief.
The court determined that the petitioners did not demonstrate a strong prima facie case for injunctive relief.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioners have not made out a prima facie case for grant of the discretionary relief of interim injunction in their favour.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Samson T George
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Babu Mathew
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K M Abdul Jaleel
- Party Age
- 46
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Arun Kumar K
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Official Liquidator, MIR Realtors Pvt. Ltd
Plaintiffs Documents
Power of Attorney executed by the 1st and 2nd plaintiff, Sale agreement, Construction agreement.
Defendants Documents
Order passed by the Hon’ble NCLT, Public Announcement, List of Creditors of MIR Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C S Manu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dilu Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C A Anupaman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T B Sivaprasad
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C Y Vijaykumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Alint Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Paul Jose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dainy Davis
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Enoch David Simon Joel
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- S Sreedev
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Rony Jose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Leo Lukose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Karol Mathews Sebastian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Derick Mathai Saji
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Karan Scaria Abraham
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Ittoop Joy Thattil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Abraham Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anil Abey Jose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Vishnuja P M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Amal Tom
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- S Praveen
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Soorya B Chandran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent from alienating, encumbering or altering the Q schedule property.
Evidence:
The court is not convinced that any irreparable harm and injury would ensue upon the petitioners if the relief of interim injunction is not granted.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed by the 1st plaintiff in favor of Alex Joseph.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favor of Alex Joseph.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Challenged by petitioners in the present suit.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Construction Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Challenged by petitioners in the present suit.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Various documents
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced by petitioners to substantiate their case.
Reference:
Exts.A5 to A21
Document Type:
Joint Venture Agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Produced by respondents to show the basis of construction.
Reference:
Ext.B1
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 Samson T George et al vs K M Abdul Jaleel et al regarding temporary prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Samson T George et al vs K M Abdul Jaleel et al regarding temporary prohibitory injunction.