Difference of 15.62% between the two Registered Valuers in regard to the Valuation made is not a substantial/material one so as to warrant an appointment of a third Valuer as per CIRP Regulation 35(1)(a)(b) and (c) – Dr. Vijay Radhakrishnan Vs. Bijoy P Pulipra, Resolution Professional PVS Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai
July 9, 2021
In the instant case, there is a variance of 15.62% in the Valuation and in this regard NCLAT points out that the value made by the two registered Valuers are only estimates and certainly there will be difference in each Valuers Report’s and to put it precisely, the difference of 15.92% as regards the Valuation of Land in the two registered Valuers Reports can be termed as minimal, in view of the fact that the Fair Value and Liquidation Value were made, taking into account variety of considerations. In so far as the plea of the Appellant that third Valuer was not appointed for reasons best known to the Resolution Professional when there is a difference in the valuation made by the two registered Valuers, NCLAT at the risk of repetition points out that the difference of 15.62% between the two registered Valuers in regard to the Valuation made is not a substantial/material one so as to warrant an appointment of a third Valuer as per CIRP Regulation 35(1)(a)(b) and (c). On this count also, the plea of the Appellant for appointment of third Valuer for the purpose of Valuation is negative by this Tribunal.