PGVCL GANDHIDHAM SUB DIVISION-THROUGH DEPUTY ENGINEER vs KISHAN KARAMSHI VADHIYARA — 383/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 34. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 06th May 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKT110036852025

Case disposed

Filing Number

383/2025

Filing Date

18-04-2025

Registration No

383/2025

Registration Date

18-04-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, GANDHIDHAM

Judge

33-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

06th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 34

Petitioner(s)

PGVCL GANDHIDHAM SUB DIVISION-THROUGH DEPUTY ENGINEER

Adv. H N ASNANI

Respondent(s)

KISHAN KARAMSHI VADHIYARA

Hearing History

Judge: 33-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

06-05-2026

Disposed

29-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

22-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

09-04-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

08-04-2026

ISSUES

Final Orders / Judgements

06-05-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court partially allowed PGVCL's suit for recovery of unpaid electricity charges against the defendant. The court found that the defendant had illegally consumed electricity by bypassing the meter without authorization, making him liable for Rs. 12,541.23 in principal charges. However, the court rejected the claim for Rs. 3,086.17 in delayed payment charges due to insufficient justification, and reduced the claimed 15% interest to 6% per annum, finding no contractual basis for the higher rate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court partially allowed PGVCL's suit for recovery of unpaid electricity charges against the defendant. The court found that the defendant had illegally consumed electricity by bypassing the meter without authorization, making him liable for Rs. 12,541.23 in principal charges. However, the court rejected the claim for Rs. 3,086.17 in delayed payment charges due to insufficient justification, and reduced the claimed 15% interest to 6% per annum, finding no contractual basis for the higher rate. 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

TALUKA COURT, GANDHIDHAM All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case