PGVCL Gariyadhar Through Its Deputy Engineer vs DUDHIBEN BADHABHAI NAGAR — 9/2025
Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 54. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 23rd April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBN060000122025
Filing Number
9/2025
Filing Date
01-01-2025
Registration No
9/2025
Registration Date
01-01-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, GARIADHAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PGVCL Gariyadhar Through Its Deputy Engineer
Adv. I L PARMAR
Respondent(s)
DUDHIBEN BADHABHAI NAGAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 30-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 19-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 27-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: RCS No. 09 of 2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed PGVCL's claim against Dudhiben Badhabhai Nagar for unauthorized electricity consumption. The court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 28,040/10 with 6% annual interest from the date of filing until full payment, and directed recovery from the respondent's property. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for 18% interest, awarding only 6% instead. Key Reasoning: The court found that the respondent illegally drew electricity directly from PGVCL's power line without authorization or proper connection, constituting electricity theft. The court accepted the petitioner's evidence and documentary proofs while noting the respondent failed to appear or contest the claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS No. 09 of 2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed PGVCL's claim against Dudhiben Badhabhai Nagar for unauthorized electricity consumption. The court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 28,040/10 with 6% annual interest from the date of filing until full payment, and directed recovery from the respondent's property. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for 18% interest, awarding only 6% instead. Key Reasoning: The court found that the respondent illegally drew electricity directly from PGVCL's power line without authorization or proper connection, constituting electricity theft. The court accepted the petitioner's evidence and documentary proofs while noting the respondent failed to appear or contest the claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts