Municipality

The plaintiffs are autorickshaw drivers who sought a court order to stop unauthorized business activities obstructing their parking space. They claimed that the Kottayam Municipality failed to act against these illegal activities despite complaints.

Haji Muhammed Rafeeq is the plaintiff, and he has filed a suit against the Secretary of the Municipality of Kottayam and Baiju S. The court dismissed the suit as not pressed.

Sainu B, the 4th defendant, filed a petition arguing that O.S.294/2018 should be stayed due to overlapping issues with another pending suit, O.S.44/2018, regarding the dissolution of a partnership firm. The Municipality is involved as a counter petitioner.

Chinnamma Thomas and others are the petitioners against Kottayam Municipality. The case was dismissed for default of cost due to the petitioner's absence.

The plaintiffs, Rahmath Nisha and Mohammed Meeran, filed a suit against defendants Aisha and Kottayam Municipality. The court dismissed the case for default as the plaintiffs were absent and not represented.

Kottayam Municipality, represented by E T Suresh Kumar, filed an execution petition against G Dinesh regarding the enforcement of a decree. The court dismissed the petition as not pressed.

The petitioner is Kottayam Municipality represented by its Secretary Anil Kumar B. The respondent is G.Dinesh, the proprietor of Archana Industries, regarding a restoration petition.

Raju George filed a suit against Kottayam Municipality and P.R.Suresh Babu seeking to prevent the construction of a waste disposal plant on his property. The plaintiff claimed that the construction would obstruct his access and cause health hazards.

M. K. Vineesh is the plaintiff in this case against Kozhikode Municipal Corporation and the Executive Engineer, Urban Planning Department. The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff was not represented in court.

The plaintiff, T.Valsarajan, claims ownership of land and a building and seeks unpaid rent from the defendants, who have been using the property without compensation. The defendants did not respond to legal notices regarding the overdue rent.