JOHN TINSON & CO. (P) LTD. v. B. K. MALHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
2005-11-19
A.R.LAKSHMANAN, S.N.VARIAVA
body2005
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. BEFORE THIS COURT CONSENT TERMS HAVE BEEN FILED ON 2-8-2005. BOTH SIDES HAVE APPOINTED M/S KOTHARI & ASSOCIATES AS VALUERS TO VALUE THE C PROPERTY CONCERNED. UNDER CLAUSE 5 BOTH SIDES HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO THIS COURT THAT THEY SHALL NOT CHALLENGE THE VALUATION REPORT AND THAT THE SAME SHALL BE BINDING ON BOTH OF THEM. 2. THE VALUER HAS NOW VALUED THE PROPERTY IN A SUM OF RS 3,82,69,500 (THREE CRORES EIGHTY-TWO LAKHS SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ONLY). 3. NOW APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED PURPORTING TO SEEK CLARIFICATION BUT IN EFFECT SEEKING TO CHALLENGE THE VALUATION AND TO WRIGGLE OUT OF THE CONSENT TERMS. IN SUPPORT OF THESE APPLICATIONS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUER HAS GROSSLY UNDERVALUED THE TENANTED PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE LETTERS WRITTEN BY ONE OF THE TENANTS OFFERING TO PAY A MUCH HIGHER RENT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUER COULD HAVE USED ANOTHER METHOD OF VALUATION AND SHOULD HAVE USED A MULTIPLE METHOD OF VALUATION WHICH WOULD THEN SHOW THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 4. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT ANY OF THE SUBMISSIONS. THE VALUER HAS BEEN APPOINTED OUT OF A LIST OF VALUERS SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT. THE VALUER WAS FREE TO ADOPT THE METHOD OF VALUATION WHICH HE CONSIDERS CORRECT. IT COULD NOT BE SHOWN TO US THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE VALUER IS NOT THE CORRECT METHOD. THE VALUER HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ACTUAL RENTS NOW BEING RECEIVED. IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE FOR PARTIES TO GET LETTERS TO THE EFFECT THAT HIGHER RENTS COULD BE RECOVERED. IF A VALUER DECIDES TO IGNORE SUCH LETTERS AND PROCEEDS TO VALUE ON THE BASIS OF RENTS ACTUALLY RECEIVED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VALUER HAS ERRED. 5. WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO SUBSTANCE IN THESE APPLICATIONS. THE APPLICATIONS STAND DISMISSED. 6. WE FIX THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS 3,82,69,500 (THREE CRORES EIGHTY- TWO LAKHS SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ONLY). THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID WITHIN 60 DAYS BY DEMAND DRAFT AS PER THE CONSENT TERMS. 7. AT THIS STAGE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS STATES THAT THE AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID WITHIN THREE WEEKS. 8. LIST ON 24-10-2005 FOR REPORTING COMPLIANCE.