Case Summary
The case involves UCO Bank as the plaintiff and M/s 4G and its proprietor Vipinkumar.V.A as defendants. The court rejected the plaint due to non-remittance of the balance court fee.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court delivered a judgment rejecting the plaint due to the non-remittance of the balance court fee.
Key Reasoning:
Plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds.
Plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds.
Why Defendant Won:
Plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds.
Plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds.
Supporting Evidence
The plaint is rejected for non remittance of balance court fee.
Judgment Evidence:
Pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of February 2025.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- UCO Bank
- Relation
- represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s 4G
- Relation
- represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vipinkumar.V.A
- Party Age
- 29
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt.C.S.Sreelatha
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Ashok.P.Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Muralee Radhakrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Plaint rejected for non remittance of balance court fee
Evidence:
Plaint is rejected for non remittance of balance court fee.
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
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2020