O.S. No. 1360/2017

Case between United Timber Corporation, Sri. Muhammed K Naushad vs Nidhi Wood Industries, Sunaja Sarojini regarding realisation of money.

Court

THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM

Judge

Sri. Rohit Nandakumar

Order Date

2024-06-20

Duration

approximately-6 years 0 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)

Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, United Timber Corporation and its Managing Partner, Sri. Muhammed K. Naushad, are involved in a monetary dispute with the defendants, Nidhi Wood Industries and its proprietor, Sunaja Sarojini. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants owe them a significant outstanding amount due to dishonored cheques and failure to repay.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims against the defendants. The judgment concluded that the defendants did not owe the outstanding amount alleged by the plaintiffs.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

No

Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to establish their claims and the authenticity of the documents presented.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sri. Muhammed K Naushad (52 years) Kaniyamkdy House, Thammanam, Pin 682 032 United Timber Corporation (Age not specified years)

Defendants

Sunaja Sarojini (48 years) SP 6/539(1), Anandeswaram, Chempazhanthi P.O, Tvm – 695 587 Nidhi Wood Industries (Age not specified years) SP 6/539(1), Anandeswaram, Chempazhanthi P.O, Tvm – 695 587

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery

Outcome: Rejected

Description:

Plaintiffs claimed a sum of 7,32,526/- with interest.

Evidence:

The plaintiff has failed to successfully establish that the defendants owe the amount to plaintiff, as alleged.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Photocopy of Deed of Partnership

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Marked subject to proof but not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.A1

Document Type: Photocopy of the acknowledgment of Registration of Firm

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Marked subject to proof but not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.A2

Document Type: Photocopy of the lawyer notice

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Marked subject to proof but not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.A3

Document Type: Reply Notice

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Marked subject to proof but not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.A4

Document Type: Credit bill issued by United Timber Corporation

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Marked subject to proof but not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.A5

Document Type: Computer print out of Statement of Account

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Marked subject to proof but not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.A6

Document Type: Computer print of Ledger Account details

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Marked subject to proof but not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.A7

Document Type: Computer print of Ledger Account details

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Marked subject to proof but not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.A8

Document Type: Photocopy of balance sheet of plaintiff Firm

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Marked subject to proof but not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.A9

Document Type: Authorisation Letter

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Marked through witness but contents not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.X1

Document Type: Certified copy of Statement of account with certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Marked through witness but contents not established in court.

Reference:

Ext.X2

Document Type: Oral Evidence

Submitted By: Unknown

Relevance:

Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff.

Reference: