SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.A.SHAH, LEELABEN TRIVEDI
PATELARVINDBHAI UMEDDAS – Appellant
Versus
DY. ENGINEER, GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: In person.
For the Respondent:Mr. L.A. Desai, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President – The appellant is original complainant who was the consumer of the Electricity Board from the opposite party. It appears that some raid was carried out and thereafter the Board has given A.B.C.D. formula, considering that the complainant had tampered with the installation and there is an alleged theft of electricity. The complainant has challenged the bill and stated that all the proceedings taken by the opposite party were unilateral, ex parte and not supported by any evidence. The complainant has further stated before us that the written statement confirmed by the Board was signed by one Manilal M. Patel, Dy. Engineer who was not present in the raid. The written statement is neither verified nor there is any affidavit in support thereof.

2. It appears that the District Forum has disposed off the matter on the first day of hearing without taking any evidence from the other side and passing his order only on the pleadings of the party. It has been pointed by us earlier also, that merely on the pleadings, the dispute cannot be decided. The pleadings are not evidence but there are respective case of the parties. District Forum therefore, should h








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top