Government

The plaintiff, Praveen Kumar. S.S, who has been running a catering service for 10 years, filed a suit against NISH and the Chief Secretary of Kerala for injunctive relief to prevent his eviction from the canteen he operates at NISH. The defendants claim that the plaintiff did not meet contractual obligations and therefore the lawsuit is not maintainable.

The plaintiffs, represented by various officers of the Kerala Non Gazetted Officers Association, brought a suit against the defendants, including Chavara Jayakumar. The case was heard and subsequently dismissed as not pressed.

The plaintiffs, Pavanasam and Sreejith S., filed a suit against the defendants, including Kumudini Fletcher and the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. The court dismissed the suit as not pressed.

The case involves the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust as the plaintiff against the Government of Kerala and other defendants. The court dismissed the suit due to the absence of the plaintiff during the trial.

The plaintiffs, Ruby Mohamed and S. Faisal, filed a suit against the State of Kerala and others. The court dismissed the case for default as the plaintiffs were absent and not represented.

S.S.Swamidas is the decree holder seeking execution against the State of Kerala and its officials. The court found that the decree is executable and dismissed the objections raised by the judgment debtors.

The plaintiff, Dr.(Col). B. Ramesh, sought a declaration of title and possession against the State of Kerala and its officials regarding a property he claims to have owned since 1978. The defendants argue that the land in question actually belongs to the government and is classified as puramboke land.

The plaintiffs, Indirabai and Sunitha, are seeking a declaration of their title and possession over certain property in Thiruvananthapuram. The defendants, including the State of Kerala, have challenged their claims, asserting that part of the land is puramboke (government land).

The plaintiff, Principal Agricultural Officer, filed a suit against the defendant, R.K.Sasiharan, for recovery of a loss of Rs. 6,70,629/- allegedly caused by the defendant's actions while he was Assistant Director of Agriculture. The court examined the merits of the claims and the defendant's defenses.

The plaintiff, Jayakumar. V, was absent and had passed away, with no legal representatives impleaded in his place. Consequently, the court ruled that the suit stands abated as per the Code of Civil Procedure.