Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S.41/2025

Case between Sheena vs Anvar et al regarding temporary injunction against illegal business.

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Judge
Sri.ARAVIND.P
Order Date
2025-04-11
Duration
approximately-3 months
Case Code No.
41
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sheena, the plaintiff, seeks a temporary injunction against Anvar and Ramabhadran to stop an illegal chicken stall operating in a shop room owned by Ramabhadran. The plaintiff alleges threats and illegal constructions facilitated by Anvar.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The petition for a temporary injunction was dismissed. The court found no prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition for a temporary injunction was dismissed. The court found no prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff.
Key Reasoning:
The first respondent had obtained the necessary licenses under the Kerala Micro Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019.
Why Defendant Won:
The first respondent had obtained the necessary licenses under the Kerala Micro Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019.
Supporting Evidence
The first respondent has obtained an acknowledgement certificate as per s.5(3) of the Kerala Micro Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019. Hence the allegation that the first respondent commenced the business without any authority is only to be rejected.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sheena
Party Age
50
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anvar
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ramabhadran.S
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Complaint to Secretary Varkala Municipality, Acknowledgment dated 22/01/2025
Defendants Documents
Agreement, Licence issued by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, Acknowledgment Certificate, Complaint to S.H.O. Varkala dated 27/01/2025, Receipt dated 30/01/2025

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Suresh S.N.Raj
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Adv.S.Sunil
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Temporary Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The petitioner requested a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from conducting illegal business in the shop room.
Evidence:
So point nos.1 to 3 are found against the petitioner and found in favour of the first respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document is a complaint to the Secretary of Varkala Municipality regarding illegal activities by the respondents.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Acknowledgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document is an acknowledgment dated 22/01/2025 related to the complaint filed.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document is an agreement related to the lease of the petition schedule shop room by the first respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: License
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document is a license issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for the conduct of the chicken stall.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Acknowledgment certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document is an acknowledgment certificate under the Kerala Micro Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document is a complaint to the S.H.O. Varkala regarding the petitioner’s attempts to interfere with the business.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document is a receipt dated 30/01/2025 related to the business activities of the first respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The document is a commission report relevant to the proceedings.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2025

Quick Facts

Location
Varkala
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Sreedevi Amma. G. vs G. Sreekumari Amma et al regarding ad-interim injunction.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sajitha. M. vs Sasi et al regarding temporary injunction.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Balachandran et al vs Sajith et al regarding ad-interim injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sarasamma et al vs Sobhana et al regarding temporary injunction for construction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Margaret Solomon Cruz et al vs Mabel James et al regarding declaration of title and injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Unknown