Case Summary
M/s Kovalam Resort (Private Limited) filed a suit against B. Saileswaran.S for the recovery of a security deposit of ₹30,000/- related to a lease agreement. The plaintiff claims the defendant failed to return the deposit after the lease ended.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of the deposit, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove its entitlement to the claimed amount.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove its case.
The court found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove its case.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove its case.
The court found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove its case.
Supporting Evidence
It is evident that several material facts were absent from the pleadings filed by the plaintiff. The object and purpose of pleadings and framing of issues is to ensure that the parties come to trial with all relevant matters clearly defined and to prevent the scope of the case from being expanded or the grounds from being shifted during the course of the trial.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result; The suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- M/s Kovalam Resort (Private Limited)
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- B. Saileswaran.S
- Party Age
- 65
Plaintiffs Documents
True copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors, Statement of Account, Copy of the notice, Original reply notice, Copy of the advocate notice, Original reply notice
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K. Murlidharan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Jaideep G. Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Arun.G
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The plaintiff sought recovery of ₹48,750/- from the defendant.
Evidence:
In light of the above deficiencies, the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove its entitlement to get the amount claimed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Board Resolution
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
A true copy of the resolution dated 30-04-2020 passed by the board of directors of the plaintiff company was produced to establish the authority of the representative.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Statement of Account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Statement of accounts showing payments made by the plaintiff company during the lease period was produced to demonstrate compliance with rental payments.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the notice dated 04-03-2017 issued to the defendant requiring payment of the security deposit.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original reply notice dated 07-03-2017 sent by the defendant admitting the transaction.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Advocate Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the advocate notice dated 10-04-2017 issued by the plaintiff's advocate requiring repayment of the security deposit.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original reply notice dated 19-04-2017 sent on behalf of the defendant, raising contentions against the claim.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2024