PGVCL Gariyadhar Through Its Deputy Engineer vs VINUBHAI LAKSHMANBHAI — 250/2025

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

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJBN060010372025

Case disposed

Filing Number

250/2025

Filing Date

07-10-2025

Registration No

250/2025

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)

VINUBHAI LAKSHMANBHAI

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. 250/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed PGVCL's claim against Vinubhai Lakshmanbhai for recovery of unpaid electricity charges totaling ₹75,150/40 paise with 6% annual interest from the bill date until payment. The respondent must also surrender the property to recover dues through attachment and sale if needed. Key Reasoning: The court found that PGVCL established its case through proper documentation and witness testimony, while the respondent failed to contest the claim or provide any defense. The electricity supply agreement and billing records proved the outstanding debt, justifying recovery proceedings with interest at the prescribed rate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS No. 250/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed PGVCL's claim against Vinubhai Lakshmanbhai for recovery of unpaid electricity charges totaling ₹75,150/40 paise with 6% annual interest from the bill date until payment. The respondent must also surrender the property to recover dues through attachment and sale if needed. Key Reasoning: The court found that PGVCL established its case through proper documentation and witness testimony, while the respondent failed to contest the claim or provide any defense. The electricity supply agreement and billing records proved the outstanding debt, justifying recovery proceedings with interest at the prescribed rate. 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