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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 21/2025

Case between Sareena Azeem vs Tata Motors Finance Limited et al regarding maintainability of the suit

Court
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2025-07-21
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sareena Azeem filed a suit against Tata Motors Finance Limited and others for a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent repossession of property. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit due to an existing arbitration agreement.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the defendants' petition challenging the maintainability of the suit, stating that the issue should be decided during the trial process. The defendants' argument regarding jurisdiction was also rejected.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The issue of maintainability must be determined during trial based on evidence, not at the preliminary stage.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the IA stands dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sareena Azeem (49 years) Kaderi House, 46/653, Mulakayil Road, Edappally South, Elamakkara, Puthukkalavattom, Ernakulam – 682 026 Now residing at Kaderia House, Peringala P.O, Ernakulam, Pin - 683 565

Defendants

Tata Motors Finance Limited (Age not specified years) H.C Dinshaw Building, Office No. 14, 4th Floor, 16 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-4000001 Mr. Vimal (38 years) Josh Centre, 3rd Floor, XII/621AA5, Infopark Road, Kakkanad, Pin – 682 030 Jithin (38 years) Josh Centre, 3rd Floor, XII/621AA5, Infopark Road, Kakkanad, Pin – 682 030

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The suit is filed praying for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from forcefully repossessing the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
In the result, the IA stands dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases