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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S.No.1429/2016

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

Court
II Additional Munsiff Court
Judge
Smt. Needi.K. Dinamany
Order Date
2024-09-23
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

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
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.

Judgment Evidence:

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

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Tamil Virat Viswa Brahma Samajam (Age not specified years) 21/170, Poornathrayeesa Temple Road, Tripunithura K G Sundaran Achari (50 years years) 21/170, Poornathrayeesa Temple Road, Tripunithura

Defendants

Virat Viswa Brahma Samajam (Age not specified years) office at Virat Viswa Brahma Samooha Madhom, Tripunithura M G Murukesan (59 years years) office at Virat Viswa Brahma Samooha Madhom, Tripunithura K R Janaka Rajan (71 years years) null K G Hari (54 years years) office at Virat Viswa Brahma Samooha Madhom, Tripunithura

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

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases