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
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
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
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts