DGVCL vs MOHAMAD RIYAZ IQBAL BOBAT — 7/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 18th April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJSR050000452026

Case disposed

Filing Number

7/2026

Filing Date

08-01-2026

Registration No

7/2026

Registration Date

08-01-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MANGROL

Judge

3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

18th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2

Petitioner(s)

DGVCL

Adv. J B GOHIL

Respondent(s)

MOHAMAD RIYAZ IQBAL BOBAT

Hearing History

Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

18-04-2026

Disposed

08-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

13-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

23-02-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

05-02-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

Final Orders / Judgements

18-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: RCS 7/2026 The court partially allowed DGVCL's suit for electricity bill recovery against defendant Mohamad Riyaz Iqbal Bobat. The defendant was caught illegally bypassing his meter and committing electricity theft during a January 2024 inspection. The court awarded the full outstanding amount of Rs. 1,39,213.70 (comprising Rs. 1,09,080.12 for the theft bill plus Rs. 30,100.48 in delayed payment charges), but reduced the plaintiff's claimed 16% interest to 9% per annum, finding the higher rate unsubstantiated and excessive under prevailing bank rates and the Civil Procedure Code. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

13-03-2026
ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS 7/2026 The court partially allowed DGVCL's suit for electricity bill recovery against defendant Mohamad Riyaz Iqbal Bobat. The defendant was caught illegally bypassing his meter and committing electricity theft during a January 2024 inspection. The court awarded the full outstanding amount of Rs. 1,39,213.70 (comprising Rs. 1,09,080.12 for the theft bill plus Rs. 30,100.48 in delayed payment charges), but reduced the plaintiff's claimed 16% interest to 9% per annum, finding the higher rate unsubstantiated and excessive under prevailing bank rates and the Civil Procedure Code. 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, MANGROL All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case