DGVCL vs ASHARAF IQBAL BOBAT — 12/2026

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

Case disposed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJSR050000512026

Filing Number

12/2026

Filing Date

08-Jan-2026

Registration No

12/2026

Registration Date

08-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MANGROL

Judge

3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DGVCL

    Adv. J B GOHIL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ASHARAF IQBAL BOBAT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    The court partially allowed DGVCL's suit for recovery of electricity dues against Asharaf Iqbal Bobat. The court awarded Rs. 1,25,133-41 (the full outstanding amount for illegal electricity theft detected during inspection) but reduced the interest rate from the claimed 18% to 9% per annum, finding the plaintiff failed to adequately prove the higher rate through documentary evidence or contractual terms. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Order

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Issues

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 05-Feb-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 08-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 08-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 12/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court partially allowed DGVCL's suit for recovery of electricity dues against Asharaf Iqbal Bobat. The court awarded Rs. 1,25,133-41 (the full outstanding amount for illegal electricity theft detected during inspection) but reduced the interest rate from the claimed 18% to 9% per annum, finding the plaintiff failed to adequately prove the higher rate through documentary evidence or contractual terms. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case