Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S.No.1427/2016

Case between V.A. Paul et al vs Sankara Narayanan.R. regarding settlement of suit

Court
II Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Maneesha K Bhadran
Order Date
2024-01-20
Duration
Case Code No.
1427
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, V.A. Paul and Baby Peter, are partners in a business and the defendant, Sankara Narayanan.R., proprietors of Avanthika Enterprises, were involved in a legal dispute. The case has been settled out of court between the parties.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found that the matter has been settled between the parties out of court and satisfied that the terms of compromise are lawful.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the matter has been settled between the parties out of court and satisfied that the terms of compromise are lawful.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The terms of compromise were found to be lawful and acceptable.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The terms of compromise were found to be lawful and acceptable.
Supporting Evidence
Satisfied that the terms of compromise are lawful.

Judgment Evidence:

Suit decreed in terms of compromise. Compromise shall form part of decree.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
V.A. Paul
Party Age
59
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Baby Peter
Party Age
51
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sankara Narayanan.R.
Party Age
55
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
V.K. Balachandran
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Kiran Peter Kuriakose
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Kabil Chandran.T
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Suit decreed in terms of compromise.
Evidence:
Satisfied that the terms of compromise are lawful. Suit decreed in terms of compromise.

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
O.S.NO.
Case Code Year
2016

Case Flags

Out-of-Court Settlement

Quick Facts

Location
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 01/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Wed, 01/31/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Rahath Hakkeem vs Rajani Sreekumar regarding mandatory injunction
II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Ajay Kumar Gupta et al vs Shajan Joseph.K.R. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
II Additional Munsiff Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Smt. Baby Ravi vs Sajini Nandakumar regarding realization of money
II Additional Munsiff Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. Metadata Technologies vs M/s. Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. regarding suit not pressed.
II Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between V P Rajamma vs Devassy alias Thomas regarding restoration of suit
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won