Fiji Rajeev vs Binu Mathai Advocate - K.K.Thomas — 100275/2014

Case under Suit for Declaration \ Section 26. Status: Listed to. Next hearing: 22nd May 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL250003542014

Listed to

Next Hearing

22nd May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

100309/2014

Filing Date

01-07-2014

Registration No

100275/2014

Registration Date

01-07-2014

Court

Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam

Judge

1-Munsiff

Acts & Sections

Suit For Declaration \ Section 26
IA/9/2025 Classification : Section Fiji RajeevBinu Mathai
IA/10/2025 Classification : Sanction Petition Section Fiji RajeevBinu Mathai
IA/11/2025 Classification : Sanction Petition Section Fiji RajeevBinu Mathai
IA/1/2026 Classification : Application For Direction To Produce Documents Section Fiji RajeevBinu Mathai

Petitioner(s)

Fiji Rajeev

Adv. N.Raveendran and M.R.Salim

Rithika.B.Lekshmi

Adv. N.Raveendran and M.R.Salim,M R

Respondent(s)

Binu Mathai Advocate - K.K.Thomas

Senior Regional Manager

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff

23-03-2026

Listed to

09-03-2026

For cross examination.

06-02-2026

Listed to

28-01-2026

for evidence.

19-01-2026

For evidence

Interim Orders

20-06-2016
Order Number 1
21-12-2016
Judgement

SUMMARY: The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. The court declared the plaintiffs' right, title, and possession over the petrol pump property and directed them to conduct operations per the 1998 agreement. Mandatory injunctions were issued ordering the first defendant to unfreeze the bank account and the second defendant (HPCL) to transfer the petrol pump license to the plaintiffs' names, while prohibitory injunctions restrained both defendants from obstructing operations or canceling the license. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. The court declared the plaintiffs' right, title, and possession over the petrol pump property and directed them to conduct operations per the 1998 agreement. Mandatory injunctions were issued ordering the first defendant to unfreeze the bank account and the second defendant (HPCL) to transfer the petrol pump license to the plaintiffs' names, while prohibitory injunctions restrained both defendants from obstructing operations or canceling the license. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case