PGVCL GANDHIDHAM SUB DIVISION -THROUGH DEPUTY ENGINEER vs THAKOR BHAVNABEN RAMESHBHAI — 327/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 34. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 29th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT110034612025
Filing Number
327/2025
Filing Date
05-04-2025
Registration No
327/2025
Registration Date
05-04-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, GANDHIDHAM
Judge
33-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PGVCL GANDHIDHAM SUB DIVISION -THROUGH DEPUTY ENGINEER
Adv. H N ASNANI
Respondent(s)
THAKOR BHAVNABEN RAMESHBHAI
Hearing History
Judge: 33-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
ISSUES
PUBLIC NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 09-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 08-04-2026 | ISSUES |
| 11-03-2026 | PUBLIC NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court partially allowed PGVCL's suit against the defendant for recovery of unpaid electricity charges. The court found that the defendant illegally consumed electricity by bypassing the meter without authorization and awarded Rs. 11,327.95 as the principal amount payable, but rejected the claimed delay payment charges of Rs. 3,240.10 due to insufficient justification. The court also reduced the interest rate from the claimed 15% per annum to 6% per annum, finding no documentary evidence supporting the higher rate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court partially allowed PGVCL's suit against the defendant for recovery of unpaid electricity charges. The court found that the defendant illegally consumed electricity by bypassing the meter without authorization and awarded Rs. 11,327.95 as the principal amount payable, but rejected the claimed delay payment charges of Rs. 3,240.10 due to insufficient justification. The court also reduced the interest rate from the claimed 15% per annum to 6% per annum, finding no documentary evidence supporting the higher rate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts