1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. COURT RECEIVER REPORT NO.111 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2538 OF 1997 Bank of Baroda. ...Plaintiff. Versus Blossom Breweries Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants. ....... Mr.Mehjaabeen A. Ahmed i/b. S.A. Ahmed for Valuer Parelkar & Dallas. Mr.Farhan Dubash with Mr. S.A. K. Najam-es-Sani i/b. M/s.Maneksha & Sethna for Defendant No.1. Mr. G.G.Ketkar, 1st Asst. to Court Receiver. ...... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. July 9, 2009. P.C.: The Court Receiver appointed a valuer M/s.Parelkar & Dallas who has submitted a bill for Rs.5,21,171/- for a valuation report in respect of the plant and machinery of certain properties situated at Daman. The Court Receiver has sought the permission of the Court for the payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the ground that this is the maximum that is prescribed under the Guidelines formulated by this Court. 2 The valuation reports submitted by the valuer were dated 27th February 1998 and 2nd March 1998. At the relevant time when the work of valuation was carried out and the valuation reports were submitted, the Guidelines of 1st February 1994 held the field. Under Clause 9 of the Guidelines, Architects were to be paid a maximum of Rs.25,000/- for valuation of immovable property. In the event that payment in excess of the aforesaid amount was to be made, the prior sanction of the Court was to be obtained. Fresh Guidelines were issued by this Court on 23rd April 1999. The Guidelines of 1999 came into force with effect from 1st May 1999. Though the valuer submitted a bill on 16th June 1999, the bill pertains to work which was done when the earlier Guidelines were in force. In these circumstances, no case has been made out for the application of the Guidelines of 1999 and the Court Receiver is palpably in error in doing so. The valuer is entitled to a maximum of Rs.25,000/- under clause 9 of the Guidelines of 1st February 1994 which held the field when the work was done. The valuer has submitted a bill of Rs.5,21,171/-. Undoubtedly under the Guidelines, the Court has the power to sanction a higher amount. There is, however, more than one reason as 3 to why such an amount should not be sanctioned. For one thing, the report dated 27th February 1998 purports to be an inventory and valuation of plant and machinery. The valuation of individual items has been done perfunctorily and there appears to be a consolidated valuation of Rs.18 crores. But more importantly, in an order dated 25th July 1998 passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.J.Vazifdar, the valuation report dated 27th February 1998 drew an adverse comment. The Learned Single Judge noted that the valuation erroneously proceeded on the basis that the plant and machinery constituted movable property when in fact they did not. The valuation was held to be flawed. In these circumstances, the Report of the Court Receiver is disposed of by directing the payment of Rs.25,000/- to the panel valuer which is the maximum amount payable under the Guidelines dated 1st February 1994. ......