DGVCL vs MURAD MEHTAB TADAVI — 17/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 18th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJSR050000622026
Filing Number
17/2026
Filing Date
09-01-2026
Registration No
17/2026
Registration Date
09-01-2026
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
Petitioner(s)
DGVCL
Adv. J B GOHIL
Respondent(s)
MURAD MEHTAB TADAVI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
Case Summary: DGVCL v. Murad Mehtab Tadavi (RCS 17/2026) The court partially allowed DGVCL's suit for recovery of Rs. 1,24,195.29 against the defendant for unpaid electricity bills. The defendant, caught illegally connected to an extra wire constituting electricity theft, had been issued a bill of Rs. 91,687.68 plus accumulated charges, but failed to pay despite notice. The court upheld the principal amount but reduced the claimed interest rate from 16% to 9% per annum, finding the plaintiff had not adequately documented the higher rate or the delayed payment charges (DPC). The defendant was ordered to pay the full amount with simple interest from the suit filing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: DGVCL v. Murad Mehtab Tadavi (RCS 17/2026) The court partially allowed DGVCL's suit for recovery of Rs. 1,24,195.29 against the defendant for unpaid electricity bills. The defendant, caught illegally connected to an extra wire constituting electricity theft, had been issued a bill of Rs. 91,687.68 plus accumulated charges, but failed to pay despite notice. The court upheld the principal amount but reduced the claimed interest rate from 16% to 9% per annum, finding the plaintiff had not adequately documented the higher rate or the delayed payment charges (DPC). The defendant was ordered to pay the full amount with simple interest from the suit filing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts