PGVCL Gariyadhar Through Its Deputy Engineer vs MEHURBHAI VALABHAI DHADHAL — 243/2025
Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 54. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 23rd April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBN060010302025
Filing Number
243/2025
Filing Date
07-10-2025
Registration No
243/2025
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)
MEHURBHAI VALABHAI DHADHAL
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. 243/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed PGVCL's claim against Mehurbhai Valabhai Dhadhal. The court ordered the defendant to pay Rs. 8,939.41 with 6% annual interest from the date of filing until payment, plus costs. The defendant's property and assets are liable for recovery of the unpaid electricity bill amount. Key Reasoning: The court found that the defendant had an electricity connection (No. 40050/00375/5) with the plaintiff utility company and failed to pay the outstanding dues despite receiving notices. The plaintiff substantiated its claim through documentary evidence and witness testimony, which the defendant failed to contest or challenge effectively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS No. 243/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed PGVCL's claim against Mehurbhai Valabhai Dhadhal. The court ordered the defendant to pay Rs. 8,939.41 with 6% annual interest from the date of filing until payment, plus costs. The defendant's property and assets are liable for recovery of the unpaid electricity bill amount. Key Reasoning: The court found that the defendant had an electricity connection (No. 40050/00375/5) with the plaintiff utility company and failed to pay the outstanding dues despite receiving notices. The plaintiff substantiated its claim through documentary evidence and witness testimony, which the defendant failed to contest or challenge effectively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts