Case between Tamil Virat Viswa Brahma Samajam et al vs Virat Viswa Brahma Samajam et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Case Summary

The case involves a dispute between the Tamil Virat Viswa Brahma Samajam and the Virat Viswa Brahma Samajam over the use of the name and registration number of the society. The petition seeks to prevent the defendants from using the name Tamil Virat Vishwa Brahma Samajam, which is contested.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The petitions to restrain the 3rd defendant from adducing evidence were dismissed. The court found that allowing the 3rd defendant to testify would not impede justice as the plaintiffs had rights to cross-examine the witness.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

No

The petitions to restrain the 3rd defendant from adducing evidence were dismissed. The court found that allowing the 3rd defendant to testify would not impede justice as the plaintiffs had rights to cross-examine the witness.

Key Reasoning:
The court ruled that shutting out the evidence of the 3rd defendant would not be equitable and the plaintiffs have the right to cross-examine.

Why Defendant Won:
Not available

Supporting Evidence

The plaintiff/petitioner has ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness at length to prove their case.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Tamil Virat Viswa Brahma Samajam
Relation: represented by its President P G Murugan Achary

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: K G Sundaran Achari
Party Age: 50
Relation: S/o K M Gopalan Achari

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Virat Viswa Brahma Samajam
Relation: represented by M G Murukesan

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: M G Murukesan
Party Age: 59
Relation: S/o M S Gopi Achari

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: K R Janaka Rajan
Party Age: 71

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: K G Hari
Party Age: 54
Relation: S/o K A Gopalan Achari

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Abraham P George
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: M D Beena
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Anas C A
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Venkatesh Gopi
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: C Varghese Kuriakose
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Ranimol M J
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction

Outcome: Refused

Description:

Petition filed to restrain the 3rd defendant from appearing and adducing evidence.

Evidence:

Therefore this court is satisfied that this petitions are not to be allowed as already IA 9/24 is allowed accepting the witness list and 3rd defendant being a party to the suit cannot be shut out from adducing evidence.

Relief Type: Injunction

Outcome: Refused

Description:

Petition to defer the examination of the 3rd defendant.

Evidence:

Therefore, 3rd defendant cannot be deferred or restrained from appearing and adducing evidence in this case.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification