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
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
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
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. 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.
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
Explore other courts