Two Decades Unpaid: Bombay High Court Sanctions Court-Appointed Valuer's Fees But Bars Double Recovery Through Interest Plus Inflation

M/s. Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. | High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Side) | 3rd September, 2026

A Court Receiver's Report seeking directions on the long-pending professional fees of a Panel Valuer engaged in 2004 pursuant to a Court order in a writ petition under the MPID Act, and on the Receiver's own discharge. The Division Bench, assisted by an Amicus Curiae, held that the 1994 Guidelines (not the 1999 or 2007 Guidelines) governed the assignment as one for valuation of immovable property in aid of sale, that prior judicial sanction for fees exceeding the prescribed ceiling could be obtained after completion of the assignment, and sanctioned the Valuer's revised fee claim in full together with 6% simple interest from the date of the bills. However, the Court rejected the Valuer's claim for an additional inflation-linked multiplier on the combined principal-and-interest sum, holding that this would amount to double compensation for the same period of delay. The Valuer was granted liberty to lodge its claim before the Official Liquidator, and the Court Receiver was discharged.

Background :

1. In Writ Petition No. 3661 of 2001, the petitioners had challenged attachment of their properties under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
2. By order dated 1st December 2003, the Court directed the Court Receiver to inspect the properties, invite offers for sale on an 'as is where is' basis, and explore completion of construction, with liberty to engage technical assistance.
3. M/s. AT & TS Associates (the Valuer) was engaged, inspected the properties, submitted its report in May 2004, and raised six bills aggregating Rs. 7,01,858/-, later revised to Rs. 6,51,062/- upon exclusion of service tax.
4. Despite repeated correspondence over more than two decades and an earlier Court Receiver's Report No.126 of 2010 seeking directions, the bills remained unpaid; Petitioner No.1 - Company could not be traced, its Director had died, and the suit account had no funds.
5. The Valuer claimed the revised principal, 6% simple interest for 21 years (Rs. 8,20,338/-), and a further multiplier of 3.21238 for erosion in the rupee's purchasing power, seeking a total of Rs. 47,26,710/-, and also sought impleadment of a third party and freezing of associated companies' assets.
6. The Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist on the applicable Guidelines and the legal principles governing enhancement of the Valuer's fees.

Court's Observations :

1. The assignment, being valuation of immovable property in aid of its proposed sale, was governed by the 1994 Guidelines (not the 1999 Guidelines dealing with royalty/compensation valuation, nor the 2007 Guidelines which post-dated completion of the work).
2. Clause 9 of the 1994 Guidelines does not require prior Court sanction before appointment of a Valuer; sanction for fees exceeding the Rs. 25,000/- ceiling can be obtained after completion of the assignment and before payment, consistent with prior orders of the Court in similar matters.
3. Given the extraordinary and unexplained delay of over two decades, with no adjudicated finding that the work was deficient or unnecessary, the Court sanctioned the Valuer's revised claim in full, exceeding the ordinary ceiling.
4. Interest at 6% per annum (as confined by the Valuer itself, per Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao) was allowed from the date of the bills, but a further inflation-linked multiplier on the combined principal-and-interest sum was rejected as amounting to double compensation for the same period of delay.
5. In the absence of any identified fund with the Court Receiver, the sanctioned claim could not be paid immediately; the Valuer was granted liberty to lodge its claim before the Official Liquidator dealing with the Company's liquidation, without the sanction determining priority or creating personal liability on any officer.
6. The Court declined the reliefs of impleadment and asset-freezing sought against a third party in the absence of pleadings or a legal basis, and directed the Court Receiver's discharge, while expressing regret to the Valuer for the extraordinary delay and recommending administrative safeguards to prevent recurrence.

Legal Provisions Discussed :

1. Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
2. Guidelines dated 1st February 1994 (No. G/643/1149) governing Panel Valuers' professional fees, Clauses 8 and 9.
3. Bai Mamubai Trust v. Suchitra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1854.
4. Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928.

Case Details :

Court Name: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Side)

Case Number: Court Receiver Report No. 25 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 3661 of 2001

Case / Party Name: M/s. Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Coram / Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.I. Chagla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Farhan P. Dubash

Date of Decision: 3rd September, 2026