Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 970/2023

Case between State Bank of India vs Jithin M.A et al regarding realisation of money

Court
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2024-12-16
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, State Bank of India, claims that the defendants, Jithin M.A and Maya Ajay, failed to repay a loan. The total amount owed by the defendants is ₹2,14,042.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay ₹2,14,042 with interest. If payment is not made, the plaintiff can recover the amount from the defendants’ assets.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendants are directed to pay an amount of ₹2,14,042 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay ₹2,14,042 with interest. If payment is not made, the plaintiff can recover the amount from the defendants’ assets.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff's case was proven through uncontested evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff's case was proven through uncontested evidence.
Supporting Evidence
I am of the opinion that the case of the plaintiff stands proved. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered by PW1.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: The defendants are directed to pay to the plaintiff, an amount of 2,14,042/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (simple interest) from the date of institution of the suit, till its realisation from the defendants or from assets of defendants.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
State Bank of India
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Jithin M.A
Party Age
26
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Maya Ajay
Party Age
47
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Application cum appraisal form for Education, Arrangement Letter for Term Loan, Agreement for Term Loan, Office copy of Legal Notice, Certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, Computer printout of Statement of Account.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Manzoor Ali K.A
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Asif M
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants are directed to pay the plaintiff an amount of 2,14,042/- with interest.
Evidence:
The defendants are directed to pay to the plaintiff, an amount of 2,14,042/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to realise the amount from the assets of the defendants if not paid.
Evidence:
If the defendants do not pay the amount as ordered, the plaintiff shall be at the liberty to realise the same from the defendants or from assets of defendants.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
Considering the nature of the suit and circumstances surrounding the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Application cum appraisal form for Education
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's claim related to the loan availed by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Arrangement letter for Term Loan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document details the terms under which the loan was provided to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Agreement for Term Loan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This agreement outlines the obligations of the defendants regarding the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Office copy of legal notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This legal notice was sent to the defendants regarding the loan repayment.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Returned Postal envelope
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates the delivery status of the communication sent to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate verifies the electronic evidence submitted in court.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Computer print out of Statement of Account from 08.12.2015 to 10.08.2023
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This statement provides a record of the transactions related to the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Statement of Interest
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document details the interest accrued on the loan amount owed by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A8

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between State Bank of India vs Jithin M.A et al regarding realisation of money
Case Code Year
Case between State Bank of India vs Jithin M.A et al regarding realisation of money

Quick Facts

Location
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sun, 12/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Tue, 12/31/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between M/s IDBI Bank vs Shri. Sajeeb V.S regarding realization of money
IN THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Bank of Baroda vs M/s M K S Agency, Sandhya Suresh regarding realization of money
Court of Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Dhanalaxmi Bank Limited vs Thaslim Nazrin V M et al regarding realization of money
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Mrs. Preethymol P.T regarding realization of money
Court of the Third Addl. Munsiff & Rent Controller, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Bank of Baroda represented by its Chief Manager, Manohar M vs Ratheesh P.S regarding recovery of money
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won