Selvet Samuel vs Venugopalan Potty Advocate - C. Parameswaran — 100015/2022
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section S.26O.7R.1. Status: Report on mediation. Next hearing: 01st July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKM200001352022
Next Hearing
01st July 2026
Filing Number
73/2022
Filing Date
19-05-2022
Registration No
100015/2022
Registration Date
19-05-2022
Court
Sub Court, Kottarakkara
Judge
1-Sub Judge,Kottarakara
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Selvet Samuel
Adv. John M. George
Respondent(s)
Venugopalan Potty Advocate - C. Parameswaran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge,Kottarakara
Report on mediation
For appearence of plaintiff/defendent
Pre trial steps
Pre trial steps
Pre trial steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-06-2026 | Report on mediation |
| 20-05-2026 | For appearence of plaintiff/defendent |
| 04-04-2026 | Pre trial steps |
| 13-03-2026 | Pre trial steps |
| 23-02-2026 | Pre trial steps |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100015/2022 The Subordinate Judge, Kottarakara dismissed defendant B. Venugopalan Potty's petition seeking rejection of plaintiff Selvet Samuel's suit on jurisdictional grounds. The defendant argued the dispute involved a joint venture governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but the court found the agreement was merely a loan transaction (₹25,00,000 with interest and profit-sharing) where the defendant had no liability for construction defects, establishing only a debtor-creditor relationship. Accordingly, the dispute was ruled non-commercial and the petition dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100015/2022 The Subordinate Judge, Kottarakara dismissed defendant B. Venugopalan Potty's petition seeking rejection of plaintiff Selvet Samuel's suit on jurisdictional grounds. The defendant argued the dispute involved a joint venture governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but the court found the agreement was merely a loan transaction (₹25,00,000 with interest and profit-sharing) where the defendant had no liability for construction defects, establishing only a debtor-creditor relationship. Accordingly, the dispute was ruled non-commercial and the petition dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts