P.G.V.C.L KOTDASANGANI vs BHIKHABHAI DANABHAI TOLIYA USER SHAILESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PATANI — 121/2025
Case under Gujarat Public Moneys (recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 Section 03. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 30th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJRJ030019632025
Filing Number
121/2025
Filing Date
02-12-2025
Registration No
121/2025
Registration Date
02-12-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, KOTDA SANGANI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.G.V.C.L KOTDASANGANI
Adv. M C DAVE
Respondent(s)
BHIKHABHAI DANABHAI TOLIYA USER SHAILESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PATANI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 28-01-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary This is a recovery suit (RCS No. 121/2025) filed by Western Gujarat Vidyut Company Limited against a consumer for unpaid electricity bills. The court partially allowed the plaintiff's claim, ordering the defendant to pay Rs. 35,111 (Rupees Thirty-five Thousand One Hundred Eleven) with 6% annual interest from the date of the claim until payment, while rejecting the plaintiff's request for 18% interest and costs. The court found the evidence supports the outstanding electricity charges but deemed the higher interest rate unjustified under current banking standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a recovery suit (RCS No. 121/2025) filed by Western Gujarat Vidyut Company Limited against a consumer for unpaid electricity bills. The court partially allowed the plaintiff's claim, ordering the defendant to pay Rs. 35,111 (Rupees Thirty-five Thousand One Hundred Eleven) with 6% annual interest from the date of the claim until payment, while rejecting the plaintiff's request for 18% interest and costs. The court found the evidence supports the outstanding electricity charges but deemed the higher interest rate unjustified under current banking standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts