Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 737/2025

Case between M/s M Acoustics et al vs Bismi Rajesh et al regarding interim mandatory injunction

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany.
Order Date
2025-09-24
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, M/s M Acoustics and others, seek an interim mandatory injunction against the defendants for unlawfully locking them out of the premises they rented for business. The plaintiffs claim they have been wrongfully denied access to their property and seek court intervention to retrieve the keys and resume operations.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found merit in the plaintiffs' claims and granted their request for an interim mandatory injunction. The defendants are ordered to return the keys to the plaintiffs within a week to allow them to resume their business operations.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Interim mandatory injunction to hand over the keys of the petition schedule building
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found merit in the plaintiffs' claims and granted their request for an interim mandatory injunction. The defendants are ordered to return the keys to the plaintiffs within a week to allow them to resume their business operations.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court determined that the plaintiffs maintained a lawful tenancy and the taking of keys could lead to unlawful eviction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court determined that the plaintiffs maintained a lawful tenancy and the taking of keys could lead to unlawful eviction.
Supporting Evidence
The court is satisfied that the petitioners have established a strong prima facie case in their favour and balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners as the lease deed is continuing.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed by an interim mandatory injunction to hand over the keys of the petition schedule building to the petitioners within one week.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M/s M Acoustics
Party Age
42
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M/s Melbourne Pro Av Tech
Party Age
42
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M/s Melbourne Media Factory
Party Age
42
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Anson I J
Party Age
42
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Bismi Rajesh
Party Age
45
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rajesh
Party Age
48
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of the details regarding the rent paid to the defendants by the 1st plaintiff, Copy of the details regarding the rent to the defendants by the 2nd plaintiff, Copy of the details regarding the rent paid to the defendants by the 3rd plaintiff
Defendants Documents
Lease agreement signed by plaintiff No: 4 for Naath Consultancy, Lease agreement signed by plaintiff No: 4 for Global acoustics

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
A T Anilkumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
V Shylaja
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Josepaul Thottam
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Fathima Razak
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Jibymon Joseph
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Aswin Anilkumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Litto Palathingal
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Baby
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Judy Jose
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Tessy M Thomas
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Respondents are directed by an interim mandatory injunction to hand over the keys of the petition schedule building to the petitioners within one week.
Evidence:
the petition is liable to be allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Petitioners are directed to pay the admitted rent from the month of July till date to the respondents without fail.
Evidence:
Petitioners shall remit the admitted rent each month thereafter on the date fixed as per the lease agreement.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Rent Payment Details
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the details regarding the rent paid to the defendants by the 1st plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Rent Payment Details
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the details regarding the rent paid to the defendants by the 2nd plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Rent Payment Details
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the details regarding the rent paid to the defendants by the 3rd plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Lease Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This lease agreement was signed by plaintiff No. 4 for Naath Consultancy.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Lease Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This lease agreement was signed by plaintiff No. 4 for Global acoustics.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report outlines the findings from the commission regarding the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between M/s M Acoustics et al vs Bismi Rajesh et al regarding interim mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between M/s M Acoustics et al vs Bismi Rajesh et al regarding interim mandatory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Tue, 09/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T.O Abraham et al vs T.O Aleyas et al regarding settlement of the suit
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Prakash Pai, et al vs Saju, et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Nithya vs Babu et al regarding Dismissal of Listed Case
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kunju Bava vs C. A Abdulla regarding specific performance of agreement and consequential reliefs
The Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Ammini M.N et al vs Sindhu et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won