Private Individual

Sri. Sadasivan and Sri. Chinmayan, who are brothers, are involved in a dispute about the flow of rainwater between their properties. The plaintiff is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing the flow of water.

K.P. Vijayalakshmi and Ashok Kumar P.R. are petitioners seeking eviction of M/s Pete's Automotive Products Private Limited due to non-payment of rent. The respondent claims that they were illegally evicted from the premises.

Gopinadhan filed a suit against the State of Kerla and other defendants. The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff and defendants were absent.

The plaintiff, Saira Basheer, owns an apartment in White Waters Apartments and is suffering from persistent water leakage caused by the defendants, including the apartment owners' association and the owner of the apartment above hers. She seeks legal remedies for the damages and relief from the defendants' negligence.

The plaintiff, M/s. Canara Bank, is seeking recovery of a loan amount from the defendant, Laljeevan C R, who availed an overdraft facility and failed to repay. The suit was filed after the defendant did not respond to summons.

The case involves the Ansals Riverdale Owners Association and the defendant N.Sugathan. The plaintiff is not pressing the suit, leading to its dismissal.

The case involves M/s Hobcm Sales Pvt. Ltd. as the plaintiff and M/s Arcus Industries along with its partner Sakethsambi Yeevuri as defendants. The plaint filed by the plaintiff was rejected due to absence of representation and non-remittance of balance court fee.

The plaintiffs, Muhammed Nazir and Rukiya Nazir, filed a suit against the defendants, M/s GTL Infrastructure Ltd and others, under the Code of Civil Procedure. The case involved a judgment where the plaint was rejected due to the balance court fee not being remitted.

Dr. Sr. Synda filed a prohibitory injunction suit against Prince J Vellukunnel and Horizon Daffodils Apartment Owners Association regarding excessive maintenance charges. The case revolves around the status of the 3rd defendant, who is claimed to be a non-existent entity as the company has been wound up.

The plaintiffs, Anto Augustine and others, are seeking to serve summons via email to the defendants, which include multinational companies. The court found that there is no provision for such service by email as the official addresses are known.