Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 661/2023

Case between Union Bank of India vs Sunitha Sujith regarding realisation of money

Court
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2024-12-11
Duration
approximately-0 years 0 days
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Union Bank of India as the plaintiff claiming that Sunitha Sujith, the defendant, has failed to repay a loan. The plaintiff seeks to recover an amount of ₹7,98,508.72 from the defendant.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant is directed to pay the claimed amount along with interest.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant is directed to pay ₹7,98,508.72 with interest at 6% per annum.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant is directed to pay the claimed amount along with interest.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The case of the plaintiff stands proved based on uncontested evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The case of the plaintiff stands proved based on uncontested evidence.
Supporting Evidence
From the uncontested evidence of the PW1, I am of the opinion that the case of the plaintiff stands proved. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered by PW1.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: I. The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff, an amount of 7,98,508.72/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Union Bank of India
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sunitha Sujith
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Demand Promissory Note, Letter of undertaking from the borrower, Letter of continuity, Interest Agreement, Term Loan Agreement, Composite debit balance confirmation, Office copy of Lawyer Notice, Returned Postal Envelope, Computer printout of Statement of Account for the period from 26.04.2018 to 31.05.2021.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
S.K Balachandran
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.M Biju
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.M Fathima
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff an amount of 7,98,508.72/- with interest.
Evidence:
I. The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff, an amount of 7,98,508.72/- (Rupees seven lakhs ninety eight thousand five hundred and eight and seventy two paise only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (simple interest) from the date of institution of the suit, till its realisation from the defendant or from assets of defendant.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Evidence:
Considering the nature of the suit and circumstances surrounding the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Demand Promissory Note
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document demonstrates the defendant's promise to repay the loan to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Letter of undertaking from the borrower
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter confirms the obligations undertaken by the borrower regarding the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Letter of Continuity
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter shows the ongoing commitment of the defendant to the loan agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Interest Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This agreement outlines the terms under which interest would be charged on the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Term loan agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This agreement details the terms of the loan availed by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Composite debit balance confirmation
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms the outstanding balance of the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Office copy of lawyer notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice serves as a formal communication regarding the outstanding payment.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Returned Postal envelope
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This envelope indicates the delivery attempt of corresponding documents.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Computer printout of Statement of Account for the period from 26.04.2018 to 31.05.2021
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This statement provides a detailed account of transactions related to the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A9

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between Union Bank of India vs Sunitha Sujith regarding realisation of money
Case Code Year
Case between Union Bank of India vs Sunitha Sujith regarding realisation of money

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Thu, 12/05/2024 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sun, 12/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Tue, 12/31/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between M/s IDBI Bank vs Shri. Sajeeb V.S regarding realization of money
IN THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Bank of Baroda vs M/s M K S Agency, Sandhya Suresh regarding realization of money
Court of Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Dhanalaxmi Bank Limited vs Thaslim Nazrin V M et al regarding realization of money
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Mrs. Preethymol P.T regarding realization of money
Court of the Third Addl. Munsiff & Rent Controller, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Bank of Baroda represented by its Chief Manager, Manohar M vs Ratheesh P.S regarding recovery of money
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won