Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No.117/2023

Case between Union Bank of India vs Ms. Neenu Solaman et al regarding court fee and representation.

Court
THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
SRI. REGHUNATH N.S.
Order Date
2024-04-02
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Union Bank of India filed a suit against Ms. Neenu Solaman and others. The case pertains to issues regarding court fees and representation of the plaintiff.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The plaintiff was absent and did not represent the case. Due to the absence and lack of necessary court fees, the plaint was rejected without costs.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaintiff was absent and did not represent the case. Due to the absence and lack of necessary court fees, the plaint was rejected without costs.
Key Reasoning:
The court dismissed the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and lack of a balance court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
The court dismissed the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and lack of a balance court fee.
Supporting Evidence
No balance court fee is seen filed. No sufficient memo, if any filed.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence, plaint is rejected. No costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Union Bank of India
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ms. Neenu Solaman
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
T.Solaman
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Annie Solaman
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Balachandran S.K
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.M.Fathima
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
N.D.Deepa
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.M.Biju
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
P.V.Anil Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Plaint was rejected due to plaintiff's absence and lack of court fee.
Evidence:
Plaintiff absent, no representation. No balance court fee is seen filed. Hence, plaint is rejected.

Documents & Evidence

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 Union Bank of India vs Ms. Neenu Solaman et al regarding court fee and representation.
Case Code Year
Case between Union Bank of India vs Ms. Neenu Solaman et al regarding court fee and representation.

Quick Facts

Location
ERNAKULAM
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 04/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Tue, 04/30/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India vs Ms. Beena Joseph regarding the suit for relief.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. vs S Francis regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between State Bank of India et al vs Baiju P.J regarding dismissal of suit
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) vs Vineesh Kumar TV et al regarding Settlement of Dispute
Court of Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Abdul Sattar vs Sudarshana Shenoy et al regarding Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Defendant Won