Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.Anitha, J
Advocate Vinod Natesan – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Tomy Mathew Vadakkancheril – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. malicious prosecution requires a demonstration of the prosecution initiated by the defendant. (Para 3 , 8 , 20) |
| 2. maintainability of a suit is contingent on whether necessary parties are included. (Para 5 , 15) |
| 3. the court clarified the principles for determining the appropriate jurisdiction in malicious prosecution cases. (Para 9 , 29) |
JUDGMENT
This Original Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , seeking to quash the order dated 27 .08.2021 in O.S. No.145 of 2019 and proceedings on 23.07.2021 in O.S.No.145 of 2019 and for quashing the entire proceedings of the said Original Suit on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode.
2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.145/2019 filed for damages for malicious prosecution by the respondent/plaintiff.
3. As per the averments in the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter be referred as respondent) is the Managing Director of a company named Elements Homestead Product Pvt. Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in collection, process and sale of Organic and Fair Trace products. The petitioner is running a co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
