Hotel Mythri vs IFCI Ltd Advocate - R SANTHOSH MAHADEVAN — 200011/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTV330000292025
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
e-Filing Number
11-02-2025
Filing Number
43/2025
Filing Date
11-02-2025
Registration No
200011/2025
Registration Date
11-02-2025
Court
Sub Court Nedumangadu
Judge
1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hotel Mythri
Adv. ANANDAKUTTAN M R
Respondent(s)
IFCI Ltd Advocate - R SANTHOSH MAHADEVAN
Abdul Rasheed alias Dr A R Babu
Hearing History
Judge: 1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
Written Statement
Written Statement
For Orders
For Orders
For Orders
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-05-2026 | Written Statement |
| 18-03-2026 | Written Statement |
| 13-03-2026 | For Orders |
| 27-02-2026 | For Orders |
| 13-02-2026 | For Orders |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 200011/2025 Outcome: Application dismissed IFCI Limited sought to reject Hotel Mythri's plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The court dismissed IFCI's application, holding that rejection of plaint must be based solely on plaint averments. Since the plaint itself contains no averments showing the matter was previously adjudicated, and IFCI failed to produce the alleged Debts Recovery Tribunal order dismissing Hotel Mythri's earlier application (SA 174/2020), the court found insufficient grounds to bar the suit on jurisdictional grounds. The suit concerning the validity of a lease agreement under Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act proceeded to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 200011/2025 Outcome: Application dismissed IFCI Limited sought to reject Hotel Mythri's plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The court dismissed IFCI's application, holding that rejection of plaint must be based solely on plaint averments. Since the plaint itself contains no averments showing the matter was previously adjudicated, and IFCI failed to produce the alleged Debts Recovery Tribunal order dismissing Hotel Mythri's earlier application (SA 174/2020), the court found insufficient grounds to bar the suit on jurisdictional grounds. The suit concerning the validity of a lease agreement under Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act proceeded to trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts