P.G.V.C.L GADHADA RURAL 1 vs GANESHBHAI JERAMBHAI JADA Advocate - EX PARTY — 3/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 16th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBT030000792026
Filing Number
3/2026
Filing Date
07-01-2026
Registration No
3/2026
Registration Date
07-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, GADHADA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.G.V.C.L GADHADA RURAL 1
Adv. S C THAKAR
Respondent(s)
GANESHBHAI JERAMBHAI JADA Advocate - EX PARTY
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 22-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 07-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 13-03-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: R.C.S.NO.3/2026 Court: Principal Civil Court, Gadhada Parties: P.G.V.C.L Gadhada Rural 1 (Petitioner) v. Ganeshbhai Jerambhai Jada (Respondent) Decision: The court held the respondent liable for unauthorized electricity theft and ordered payment of Rs. 7,652.55 as the electricity bill amount. The respondent must pay this sum along with 6% annual interest from the date of notice until payment, and bear all court costs. The court found that the respondent illegally drew power without proper connection authorization, constituting electricity theft under the Electricity Act, 2003, and rejected the respondent's defense for non-appearance and lack of valid evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S.NO.3/2026 Court: Principal Civil Court, Gadhada Parties: P.G.V.C.L Gadhada Rural 1 (Petitioner) v. Ganeshbhai Jerambhai Jada (Respondent) Decision: The court held the respondent liable for unauthorized electricity theft and ordered payment of Rs. 7,652.55 as the electricity bill amount. The respondent must pay this sum along with 6% annual interest from the date of notice until payment, and bear all court costs. The court found that the respondent illegally drew power without proper connection authorization, constituting electricity theft under the Electricity Act, 2003, and rejected the respondent's defense for non-appearance and lack of valid evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts