PGVCL GANDHIDHAM SUB DIVISION-THROUGH DEPUTY ENGINEER vs DINESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PANCHAL — 401/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 34. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 08th May 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKT110037412025

Case disposed

Filing Number

401/2025

Filing Date

18-04-2025

Registration No

401/2025

Registration Date

18-04-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, GANDHIDHAM

Judge

32-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

08th 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)

DINESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PANCHAL

GULABBHAI

AMIT SHANKARBHAI GADHVI

Hearing History

Judge: 32-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

08-05-2026

Disposed

01-05-2026

JUDGEMENT

02-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

11-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

06-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Final Orders / Judgements

08-05-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The Additional Civil Judge at Gandhidham partially allowed Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.'s suit against three defendants for recovery of electricity theft arrears. The court found that the defendants had illegally tampered with the service line and stolen electricity, and awarded Rs. 1,72,035/- with interest at 6% per annum from the filing date, along with suit costs, though it reduced the requested 15% interest rate to 6% as the plaintiff failed to properly substantiate the higher rate claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Civil Judge at Gandhidham partially allowed Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.'s suit against three defendants for recovery of electricity theft arrears. The court found that the defendants had illegally tampered with the service line and stolen electricity, and awarded Rs. 1,72,035/- with interest at 6% per annum from the filing date, along with suit costs, though it reduced the requested 15% interest rate to 6% as the plaintiff failed to properly substantiate the higher rate claim. 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