PGVCL Gariyadhar Through Its Deputy Engineer vs GU. DUNGARBHAI JASMATBHAI NA VARS PUTRA BHAVANBHAI DUNGARBHAI KHOKHANI — 242/2025

Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 54. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 23rd April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJBN060010292025

Case disposed

Filing Number

242/2025

Filing Date

07-10-2025

Registration No

242/2025

Registration Date

07-10-2025

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

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 54

Petitioner(s)

PGVCL Gariyadhar Through Its Deputy Engineer

Adv. I L PARMAR

Respondent(s)

GU. DUNGARBHAI JASMATBHAI NA VARS PUTRA BHAVANBHAI DUNGARBHAI KHOKHANI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

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

23-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: RCS No. 242/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed PGVCL's claim against Bhavanbhai Dungarbhai Khokhani for recovery of outstanding electricity charges of ₹2,25,492.73 with interest. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimed amount plus 6% annual interest from the date of filing until payment, with recovery permissible from the respondent's property and assets. Key Reasoning: The court found that PGVCL established its case through proper documentary evidence and credible witness testimony, while the respondent failed to appear, provide any defense, or submit counter-evidence. The respondent's non-cooperation and non-payment despite notice justified the recovery order under electricity distribution regulations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS No. 242/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed PGVCL's claim against Bhavanbhai Dungarbhai Khokhani for recovery of outstanding electricity charges of ₹2,25,492.73 with interest. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimed amount plus 6% annual interest from the date of filing until payment, with recovery permissible from the respondent's property and assets. Key Reasoning: The court found that PGVCL established its case through proper documentary evidence and credible witness testimony, while the respondent failed to appear, provide any defense, or submit counter-evidence. The respondent's non-cooperation and non-payment despite notice justified the recovery order under electricity distribution regulations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, GARIADHAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case