PARAMVIR ICE FACTORYS OWNER, VIRUBEN PARSOTAMBHAI KHERAVA vs PGVCL MANGROL Advocate - K T DUBEY — 49/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 27th March 2026.

RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: GJJN210014172024

Case disposed

Filing Number

49/2024

Filing Date

20-12-2024

Registration No

49/2024

Registration Date

20-12-2024

Court

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-KESHOD

Judge

1-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

27th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

PARAMVIR ICE FACTORYS OWNER, VIRUBEN PARSOTAMBHAI KHERAVA

Adv. D V KUMBHANI

PARSOTAMBHAI KESHAVBHAI KHORAVA

Adv. D V KUMBHANI

Respondent(s)

PGVCL MANGROL Advocate - K T DUBEY

Hearing History

Judge: 1-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

27-03-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

11-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

11-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

29-01-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The 2nd Additional District Judge, Junagadh allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The court held that the electricity distribution company failed to prove electricity theft against the ice factory owner because: (1) no meter testing was conducted by an Electrical Inspector or independent expert; (2) the anomaly code found in the meter was not definitively proven to indicate theft rather than a technical fault; and (3) no provisional bill was issued as mandated by the Electricity Act. The company is barred from recovering the supplementary bill of ₹9,14,692.61 and disconnecting the electricity supply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The 2nd Additional District Judge, Junagadh allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The court held that the electricity distribution company failed to prove electricity theft against the ice factory owner because: (1) no meter testing was conducted by an Electrical Inspector or independent expert; (2) the anomaly code found in the meter was not definitively proven to indicate theft rather than a technical fault; and (3) no provisional bill was issued as mandated by the Electricity Act. The company is barred from recovering the supplementary bill of ₹9,14,692.61 and disconnecting the electricity supply. 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

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-KESHOD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case