SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED vs AMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Advocate - null( — CRA/182/2026
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 115. Status: 139-For Speaking To Minutes. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: GJHC240105432026
Filing Number
CRA/4455/2026
Filing Date
06-Feb-2026
Registration No
CRA/182/2026
Registration Date
20-Feb-2026
Judge
Honourable Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi
Coram
Honourable Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi
Bench Type
SINGLE
Category
272-SJ - CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ( 272 )
Sub-Category
1225-SJ - CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - MISCELLANEOUS ( 1225 )
Judicial Branch
JUDICIAL
Last updated 10-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED
Adv. MR MB GOHIL(
-
2.CHIEF ENGINEER, SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED
Adv. MR MB GOHIL(
-
3.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Adv. MR MB GOHIL(
Respondent(s)
-
1.AMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Advocate - null(
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
24-Mar-2026
Honourable Mr. Justice Ashutosh Shastri,honourable Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi
-
26-Feb-2026
Honourable Mr. Justice Ashutosh Shastri,honourable Mr. Justice J. C. DoshiView PDF
Summary: The High Court of Gujarat admitted the civil revision application and stayed the Tribunal's judgment on condition that the entire decretal amount be deposited before the court within six weeks, to be invested in an FDR. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments that the Tribunal had enhanced the mutually agreed contract rate and imposed an excessive 10% interest rate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Feb-2026
3600-Fresh Matters
Honourable Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi
-
16-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRA/182/2026
Summary: The High Court of Gujarat admitted the civil revision application and stayed the Tribunal's judgment on condition that the entire decretal amount be deposited before the court within six weeks, to be invested in an FDR. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments that the Tribunal had enhanced the mutually agreed contract rate and imposed an excessive 10% interest rate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts