A. Vincent George vs N. Amutha Kumari Advocate - JOHN JAYA KUMAR — 1/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section S.26 OF CPC. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
COS - Commercial Original Suit
CNR: TNKK150000492025
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
e-Filing Number
14-02-2025
Filing Number
46/2025
Filing Date
15-03-2025
Registration No
1/2025
Registration Date
02-06-2025
Court
Sub Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Sub Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
A. Vincent George
Adv. A.V. Sathiya
Respondent(s)
N. Amutha Kumari Advocate - JOHN JAYA KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 01-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 28-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: C.O.S. No. 1/2025, Sub Court, Eraniel Date: 27.04.2026 This is a civil construction dispute between a contractor (plaintiff) and property owner (defendant) concerning a building construction contract. The defendant-witness (DW1) testified regarding payment disputes, construction quality, work completion stages, and conflicting claims about the contract amount (₹2,741 sq.ft. vs. ₹4,200 sq.ft. at ₹1,525/sq.ft.). The witness disputed key contentions, including payment amounts (claiming ₹32,30,000 paid, not ₹36,78,757.50), work stage completion, and responsibility for defects. The document records examination-in-chief and cross-examination testimony but does not contain the final court order or judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: C.O.S. No. 1/2025, Sub Court, Eraniel Date: 27.04.2026 This is a civil construction dispute between a contractor (plaintiff) and property owner (defendant) concerning a building construction contract. The defendant-witness (DW1) testified regarding payment disputes, construction quality, work completion stages, and conflicting claims about the contract amount (₹2,741 sq.ft. vs. ₹4,200 sq.ft. at ₹1,525/sq.ft.). The witness disputed key contentions, including payment amounts (claiming ₹32,30,000 paid, not ₹36,78,757.50), work stage completion, and responsibility for defects. The document records examination-in-chief and cross-examination testimony but does not contain the final court order or judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts