SC: POCSO Guilt Presumption Not Absolute, Acquits Accused  ||  Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules  ||  Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules  ||  SC: Unexplained 5-Day Sample Custody Gap Breached S.52A, Acquits 2 after 20 Years  ||  P&H High Court: Illegal Search Alone Does Not Justify Quashing of Complaint under PNDT Act  ||  Bom HC: Creating WhatsApp Group Without Employer's Permission Not Ground for Compulsory Retirement  ||  Madras HC: Lack of Son’s Moral Support Alone Cannot Sustain Father’s Maintenance Claim under CrPC  ||  Kerala HC: University Professor doesn't Occupy 'Public Office', Quo Warranto Not Maintainable  ||  Bombay HC Allows Cutting of 1,237 Mangroves for Connector Bridge in Mumbai’s Western Suburbs  ||  Calcutta HC Orders Return of 3-Year-Old to Adoptive Couple, he wasn't Abandoned    

Rajkumar Tahilram v Trustees of the Lukamber Trust and Another - (09 Dec 2021)

Court has the power to interfere with the valuer’s decision in review proceedings

Civil

The primary issue before the SCA is when parties agree to refer a matter to an expert valuer, whether the valuer is legally permitted to unilaterally withdraw the valuation in order to alter or amend it, once the valuer’s valuation has been communicated to the parties concerned.

Values of finality and certainty are foundational, especially to administrative law and to contract law. In their shareholders agreement the parties have identified a means of agreement on the fair market value of the shares of the company concerned, by reference to the valuer identified by them and that his valuation shall be final and binding on them; they must be held to their bargain.

In the absence of a contractual provision to the contrary or agreement or waiver by the parties, whenever parties agree to refer a matter to a valuer, then so long as the valuer arrives at his or her decision honestly and in good faith, the decision is final and binding on them and they are bound by it once communicated to them. The valuer is then functus officio insofar as the valuation and matters pertaining thereto are concerned. That being so, the valuer is then not permitted to unilaterally withdraw or cancel the valuation in order to alter or amend it. Only a court has the power to interfere with the valuer’s decision in review proceedings. The judicial ambit of the court’s power to interfere is severely circumscribed, and limited to the narrow grounds as enunciated in this court’s jurisprudence

The first Respondent is to pay the amount of R2 878 574.70 to the applicant, being the purchase consideration for the sale of his shares in the second respondent to the first respondent. The first respondent is to pay interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum tempore morae on the aforementioned amount from the date of this order until final payment. The appeal is upheld with costs.

Tags : VALUATION   ALTERATION   PROCEEDINGS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved