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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 1150/2018

Case between Sunil K.K vs Nithin P.S regarding money realization

Court
Court of the Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-06-12
Duration
approximately-7 years 4 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Sunil K.K, lent money to the defendant, Nithin P.S, for a restaurant business expansion and is seeking repayment. The defendant claims the loan was fully repaid, leading to a dispute over the validity of the loan documents.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of the loan documents. However, the defendant was ruled to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with 6% interest.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff was able to establish a loan agreement, but the defendant also provided substantial defenses against the claims made.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows. i. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sunil K.K (41 years years) Koroth veedu, Kangarappady, Kochi – 682 021

Defendants

Nithin P.S (29 years years) Pezhungapparambil veedu, Kangarappady, Kochi – 682 021

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Partly Granted
Description:
The plaintiff sought the recovery of the loan amount advanced to the defendant.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed as follows. i.The defendant shall pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
The court addressed the issue of costs but directed parties to bear their respective costs.
Evidence:
Considering the peculiar factual circumstance of this case, parties shall bear their respective costs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Demand Promissory Note
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the demand promissory note issued by the defendant dated 11.02.2016, which the plaintiff claims as evidence of the loan agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the agreement executed by the defendant dated 16.07.2016 related to an additional sum borrowed by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Final report
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of the final report submitted by the police regarding the alleged acts of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Evidence from the side of the plaintiff and defendant includes oral testimony.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 06/12/2018 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases