Bombay High Court Awards Rs 14.71 Lakh in Fees and Interest to Valuer After 20 Years
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a valuer appointed by a Court Receiver cannot be denied reasonable remuneration merely because prior court sanction was not obtained for fees exceeding the prescribed limit. A division bench comprising Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash sanctioned revised professional fees of Rs 6.51 lakh and awarded Rs 8.20 lakh in interest up to May 2025 to valuer firm AT & TS Associates for work completed more than two decades ago.
The matter originated from legal proceedings involving properties attached under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act in connection with Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd, a firm currently under liquidation. In December 2003, the court directed the Court Receiver to inspect the company's properties, evaluate their overall condition, and explore possibilities for their completion and eventual sale. To obtain technical assistance, the Court Receiver engaged AT & TS Associates.
AT & TS Associates completed the assignment and submitted its formal valuation reports in May 2004. The firm subsequently submitted six bills amounting to approximately Rs 7.02 lakh, which was later revised downwards to Rs 6.51 lakh after excluding service tax. Despite completing the court-assigned task, the valuer's dues remained entirely unpaid for over 20 years.
Examining the regulatory framework, the bench reviewed Clause 9 of the 1994 Guidelines, which set a Rs 25,000 ceiling and required sanction for payments exceeding that threshold. The judges observed that on a plain reading of Clause 9, there was no requirement that the court's sanction had to be obtained before the appointment of the valuer. The bench emphasized that a valuer appointed at the instance of the Court Receiver is entitled to proceed on the understanding that the assignment is a legitimate court-authorised task.
The court emphasized that an administrative failure to secure prior sanction could not deprive a professional of fair remuneration for legitimate work that had been formally accepted. The bench noted that the work done was undisputed, the technical reports were never alleged to be defective, and the submitted bills were not claimed to be inflated.
In addition to the Rs 8.20 lakh interest calculated up to May 2025, the court granted simple interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount from June 1, 2025, until full payment is realized. However, the bench rejected a separate claim linked to inflation, categorizing it as overlapping compensation.
Expressing regret over the protracted delay, the bench observed that professionals engaged in court-related tasks should not be forced to wait decades to receive legitimate remuneration. The High Court directed the Court Receiver to forward all relevant case documents to the Official Liquidator and formally discharged the Receiver from further responsibility in the matter.
