Case Summary
The plaintiff, Sujana. A, has filed a suit against the defendants, Joyal Jacob Sebastian and Sneha Reji, over issues related to a franchise agreement for a business named ‘Peach Vault Clothing’. The plaintiff claims substantial financial loss due to the defendants' failure to supply goods as per the agreement.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the application for attachment before judgment filed by the plaintiff. It was found that the plaintiff did not satisfactorily establish the identity and particulars of the movables to be attached.
Key Reasoning:
The court determined that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence to justify the attachment of property.
The court determined that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence to justify the attachment of property.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has not satisfactorily established the identity and particulars of the movables ought to be attached.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the IA is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sujana. A
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Joyal Jacob Sebastian
- Party Age
- 26
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sneha Reji
- Party Age
- 23
Plaintiffs Documents
Franchise agreement dated 11.03.2024, legal notices dated 06.05.2025 and 24.05.2025, notice of franchise discontinuation dated 25.08.2025.
Defendants Documents
Franchise agreement dated 11.03.2024 (Photocopy).
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Arun Kumar. B
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dhanalekshmi Harikumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- George Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Abdul Karim. T
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Attachment
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought an order to attach the movable properties of the defendants before judgment.
Evidence:
Point No.1: "In the above circumstances, this Court has found that the plaintiff has not satisfactorily established the identity and particulars of the movables ought to be attached."
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Franchise agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the franchise relationship and terms between the plaintiff and the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Rental Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document proves the plaintiff's renting of the shop room for the franchise business.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Advocate Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was issued to the defendants regarding the issues with the franchise.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document contains the defendants' response to the plaintiff's advocate notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Notice of franchise discontinuation
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice notifies the plaintiff about the termination of the franchise agreement by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Reply e-mail
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This email provides further details related to the franchise discontinuation.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Copy of FIR
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document relates to the police complaint lodged by the plaintiff against the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Franchise agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This photocopy of the franchise agreement supports the defendants' version of the agreement terms.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was prepared to assess the movables in the franchise business for the attachment application.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Breach of franchise agreement
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2025