Private Individual

This case involves Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Ltd. as the complainant and Muneera Beevi.S as the accused. The matter pertains to an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The decree holder is the Murunthal Service Cooperative Bank Ltd represented by its secretary in charge, P.A. Sreejit. The judgment debtors are Gopakumar and Raja Lekshmi, and the petition filed by the decree holder was dismissed for default due to their absence.

The case involves Chellamma and her daughter Thankamani as petitioners against Thampi, the respondent. The petitioners seek an injunction to prevent the respondent from evicting them from their residence.

M/s.Canara Bank filed a suit under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 to 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for Realization of Money. The suit was heard on 19-08-2025, and the plaintiff stated that the suit was not pressed.

This case involves Rajendran Pillai and Rugmini Amma who are petitioners against the Pulayar Maha Sabha represented by its officials. The petition was about relief sought by the petitioners.

The case involves the Branch Manager of Indian Bank seeking to restore a previous petition. The petition was brought before the court but dismissed for default as no fresh steps were taken by the petitioner.

The case involves decree holders Marriamma Cleetas and Cleetas Antony filing a petition against multiple judgment debtors including M/s.Rudra Publications and B.V. Raveendran. The petition was dismissed due to the absence of the parties and no steps taken in the matter.

Canara Bank filed a suit for the realization of money against Sajitha. S and Nusha.S.N. The matter was settled in mediation.

This case involves a petition by Thottakkattu Sreekrishna Swamy Temple against Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam. The court dismissed the petition due to the absence of the petitioner.

Muthoot Microfin Ltd is the decree holder represented by its manager Manu.M, and Ramani. V is the judgment debtor. The petition was filed under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the court dismissed it due to the decree holder's absence and non-compliance.