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
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
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
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts