S0UDAMINI v. C.v.Sali
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed an appeal against a lower court decree in a suit for damages for wrongful arrest and detention. The court held the claim of Rs.25,000 was reasonable and fair, modifying the decree to permit recovery of this sum with interest.
What did the court decide?
The appeal allowed; decree modified to permit plaintiffs to recover Rs.25,000 from respondents jointly and severally with interest at 6% per annum from 17.8.1994 till 30.11.1996 and thereafter at 12%
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/14TH PHALGUNA, 1936
AS.No. 73 of 1998 (C)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 330/1994 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA, DATED 30-11-1996
APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:-
1. SAUDAMINI, ZACHARIA PARAMBIL, KAITHAVANA MURI, PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.
2. INDIRA OF DO. DO. (DIED)
(IT IS REPORTED THAT THE SECOND APPELLANT DIED AND THE FIRST APPELLANT IS ONE OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED SECOND APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 27.8.2009 (VIDE MEMO DATED 4.10.2002). BY ADVS.SMT.C.G.BINDU SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.D.SARITHA SMT.M.K.RAJITHA
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:-
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to higher damages for wrongful arrest and detention.
What is the quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs?
Whether the appellate court should modify the decree to reflect the claimed damages.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
SAUDAMINI, ZACHARIA PARAMBIL
- respondent
C.V.SALI, S.I. OF POLICE
- respondent
KHURESHI, S.I. OF POLICE
- respondent
SUDHEENDRAN, JEEP DRIVER
- respondent
GHEETHA, W/O.SALI
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court