SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED vs AMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Advocate - null( — CRA /182/2026

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 115. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: GJHC240105432026

Next Hearing

: -

Filing Number

CRA /4455/2026

Filing Date

06-02-2026

Registration No

CRA /182/2026

Registration Date

20-02-2026

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

Acts & Sections

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 Section 115

Petitioner(s)

SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED

Adv. MR MB GOHIL(

CHIEF ENGINEER, SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED

Adv. MR MB GOHIL(

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Adv. MR MB GOHIL(

Respondent(s)

AMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Advocate - null(

Hearing History

Judge: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

16-02-2026

3600-FRESH MATTERS

26-02-2026

3600-FRESH MATTERS

Orders

26-02-2026
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

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.

24-03-2026

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case