Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.1230/2022

Case between Bank of Baroda vs M/s Global et al regarding rejection of plaint.

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri.Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-07-26
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Bank of Baroda, was absent and not represented during the hearing. The court rejected the plaint due to the absence of a balance court fee and no application submitted.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court ruled that the plaint was rejected due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the necessary court fee.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled that the plaint was rejected due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the necessary court fee.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was absent and did not represent themselves, leading to a dismissal of the case based on procedural grounds.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff was absent and did not represent themselves, leading to a dismissal of the case based on procedural grounds.
Supporting Evidence
The court noted the absence of the plaintiff and the lack of any remittance of court fees as reasons for dismissal.

Judgment Evidence:

the plaint is rejected under order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Bank of Baroda
Relation
represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
M/s Global
Relation
represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Surej.S.R.
Party Age
40
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Lathikambika.C
Party Age
34
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Sheeba Jaffer Sait
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Lekshmi.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Namitha Ann Binu
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint is rejected under order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Evidence:
No Balance Court Fee seen remitted. No application filed. Hence the plaint is rejected under order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Bank of Baroda vs M/s Global et al regarding rejection of plaint.
Case Code Year
Case between Bank of Baroda vs M/s Global et al regarding rejection of plaint.

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between Indian Overseas Bank vs Aradhi Restaurant regarding rejection of plaint
Court of Principal Munsiff
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Indian Overseas Bank vs Santhosh Kumar regarding realisation of money.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Jayan. E et al regarding realisation of money
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Smt. Sheeja. N regarding plaint rejection
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won