PGVCL THROUGH DTY ENGINEER vs MAHEBUBBHAI MAMADBHAI GABOL — 131/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--EX on 20th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJJM110018682025
Filing Number
131/2025
Filing Date
15-10-2025
Registration No
131/2025
Registration Date
15-10-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, KALAVAD
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
20th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PGVCL THROUGH DTY ENGINEER
Adv. P D JADEJA
Respondent(s)
MAHEBUBBHAI MAMADBHAI GABOL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 16-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 03-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 29-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal Civil Judge at Kalavad partly allowed PGVCL's suit against defendant Mahebubbhai Gabol for electricity theft recovery. The court found the defendant had illegally obtained a direct connection from an electric pole, committing theft of electricity, and upheld the due amount of Rs. 23,397-13. However, the court reduced the interest rate from the claimed 16% p.a. to 6% p.a. from the suit's filing date, as no specific contractual agreement on interest existed. The defendant was ordered to pay the principal amount with interest and bear all costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal Civil Judge at Kalavad partly allowed PGVCL's suit against defendant Mahebubbhai Gabol for electricity theft recovery. The court found the defendant had illegally obtained a direct connection from an electric pole, committing theft of electricity, and upheld the due amount of Rs. 23,397-13. However, the court reduced the interest rate from the claimed 16% p.a. to 6% p.a. from the suit's filing date, as no specific contractual agreement on interest existed. The defendant was ordered to pay the principal amount with interest and bear all costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts