Mumbai, September 5, 2026: The Bombay High Court has held that a Valuer appointed by the Court Receiver cannot be denied reasonable remuneration merely because prior court sanction was not obtained for fees exceeding the prescribed limit.
The ruling came while deciding the claim of AT & TS Associates, whose professional fees remained unpaid for more than two decades despite completing the assignment in 2004.
A division bench of Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash sanctioned revised fees of Rs 6.51 lakh and awarded Rs 8.20 lakh as interest up to May 2025.
“More importantly, a Valuer appointed at the instance of the Court Receiver is entitled to proceed on the basis that the assignment entrusted to it is a legitimate Court-authorised assignment,” the bench observed.
Court Upholds Reasonable Payment
The court said an administrative failure to obtain sanction before paying higher fees could not, by itself, deprive the Valuer of reasonable payment for work completed and accepted.
The matter arose from proceedings concerning properties attached under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act in connection with Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd, which is under liquidation.
Valuer Completed Assignment In 2004
In December 2003, the court directed the Receiver to inspect the properties, report on their condition and explore their completion and sale. The Receiver engaged AT & TS Associates for technical assistance. The Valuer completed the assignment and submitted its reports in May 2004.
It subsequently raised six bills totalling around Rs 7.02 lakh, later revised to Rs 6.51 lakh after excluding service tax. The dues, however, remained unpaid for over 20 years.
Guidelines On Fee Sanction Examined
The court examined Clause 9 of the 1994 Guidelines, which prescribed a Rs 25,000 ceiling and required sanction for payment beyond that amount.
“On a plain reading of Clause 9, we find no stipulation requiring the Court’s sanction to be obtained before appointment of the Valuer,” the bench said.
The court noted that the work was undisputed, the reports were not alleged to be defective and the bills were not claimed to be inflated.
Also Watch:
Interest Awarded, Inflation Claim Rejected
It also granted further simple interest at 6% annually on the principal from June 1, 2025, until payment, but rejected a separate inflation-linked claim as overlapping compensation.
Expressing regret over the prolonged delay, the court said professionals engaged in court work should not have to wait decades for legitimate dues. It directed the Receiver to forward the relevant documents to the Official Liquidator and discharged the Receiver from further responsibility.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
