Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.863/2023

Case between State Bank of India vs Jaya Selvi et al regarding recovery of money

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-03-05
Duration
approximately-2 years 6 months
Case Closed
Wed, 03/05/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The State Bank of India filed a suit for the recovery of money against Jaya Selvi and Vijil Kumar. The suit concerns a loan availed by late Gopakumar.A.S, which was defaulted on, leading to the bank seeking repayment from the defendants.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing them to recover ₹2,40,863/- along with future interest from the defendants. The case was concluded with the plaintiff being entitled to interest at specific rates until realization.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Plaintiff is allowed to realise ₹2,40,863/- together with future interest from the defendants and their assets.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing them to recover ₹2,40,863/- along with future interest from the defendants. The case was concluded with the plaintiff being entitled to interest at specific rates until realization.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff provided unchallenged evidence supporting their claim, and the defendants failed to contest the case.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff provided unchallenged evidence supporting their claim, and the defendants failed to contest the case.
Supporting Evidence
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit. The evidence of the plaintiff is unchallenged because the defendants were set ex parte.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed with costs as follows: 1. Plaintiff is allowed to realise ₹2,40,863/- together with future interest from the defendants and their assets.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
State Bank of India
Relation
represented by its Branch Manager
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Jaya Selvi
Party Age
48
Relation
W/o Late Gopa Kumar. A.S
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vijil Kumar.S.L
Party Age
46
Relation
Special Assistance, KSRTC
Plaintiffs Documents
Loan Application, Personal Loan Agreement, Guarantee Agreement, Demand Promissory Note, Copy of Advocate Notice with postal receipts, Statement of Account
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Sreeja Sasidharan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Sree Ramakrishnan Menon
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of ₹2,40,863/- together with future interest from the defendants.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is allowed to realise ₹2,40,863/- together with future interest from the defendants and their assets.
Relief Type: Interest
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of interest at the rate of 12% per annum with monthly rests.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is allowed to realise interest at the rate of 12% per annum with monthly rests from 04/04/2023 till the date of decree.
Relief Type: Future Interest
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is allowed to realise future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is allowed to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants and their assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Loan Application
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted by late Gopakumar.A.S as part of the loan process.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Personal Loan Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement outlining the terms of the loan availed by Gopakumar.A.S.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Guarantee Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement detailing the second defendant's guarantee for the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Demand Promissory Note
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Note evidencing the demand for repayment of the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Copy of Advocate Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice issued to both defendants regarding loan repayment demand.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Statement of Account
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Account statement showing outstanding dues on the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between State Bank of India vs Jaya Selvi et al regarding recovery of money
Case Code Year
Case between State Bank of India vs Jaya Selvi et al regarding recovery of money

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Sun, 03/05/2023 - 12:00
Case Closed
Wed, 03/05/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between Canara Bank vs M/s M.R.K Agency regarding realization of money.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Federal Bank Ltd vs Rohil. V et al regarding Suit for realisation of money.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kerala Gramin Bank vs Shibu.V et al regarding realisation of money
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kerala Gramin Bank vs Velamkanni Matha JLG Vizhinjam Unit et al regarding realization of money.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kerala Gramin Bank vs Ayodhya Kudumbasree et al regarding recovery of money.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won