Farhat Sheikh vs. Javed Zaki

F6 1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 7131-7132/2010 FARHAT SHEIKH Appellant (s) VERSUS JAVED ZAKI & ORS. Responden t(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 7134-7135/2010 (With Office Report) Date : 25/02/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Appellant-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. N. Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sonia Dube, Adv. Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Adv. for M/s. Victor Moses & Associates UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the appellant, who has appeared in person, as well as Mr. Shyam Divan and Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, at length. Having regard to the chequered history of the litigation between members in the same family and ultimately having Signature Not Verified realised that the litigation should end at some st age, it Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2016.02.26 14:16:08 IST Reason: appears that a solution has evolved. The genesis to the extent relevant, as far as the appeals before us are concerned, is the

2

order passed by the Company Law Board on 31.10.1994. The respondents challenged the said order before the High Court and from then onwards, there have been several litigations between the parties. When the matter is taken up before us, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submit that they do not press the appeals filed by them before the High Court challenging the order of the Company Law Board. As far as the appellant is concerned, she has already accepted the order of the Company Law Board.

Therefore, how to go forward from the stage of the order passed by the Company Law Board dated 31.10.1994 is the question.

It is not in dispute that as per the order of the Company Law Board, the respondents herein have to purchase 23% shares in Detinners Pvt. Ltd. and 16.25% shares in Esemen Metalo Chemical Pvt. Ltd.

In order to facilitate the process, though the matters should normally have been sent back in view of the decades old litigation, on a suggestion made by the Court, both the parties have fairly submitted that an attempt can be made for a fair valuation of the properties and shares.

As agreed by the parties, as far as the following properties of the companies are concerned, there has to be two valuers, one for the properties situated in Mumbai and the others situated in Kolkata. The following is the list of properties :- 1. Leasehold propety at 126, SV Road Jogeshwari, Mumbai. Area - 14157 Sq. Yd. approx. (includes area acquired by BMC) and area 3

occupied by tenants & other occupants.

2. Roypur, Maheshtolla, West Bengal (Freehold). Area -2,88,000 sq. ft. approx.

3. Leasehold property at 214 BL Saha Road, Kolkata. Area approx 1,10,000 sq. ft. Tenanted area - approx. 20,000 sq. ft. 4. 2, Waterloo Street, Kolkata (freehold) land area 7920 sq. ft (approx) includes tenants.

4. Tenanted shop at Colootola Street, Kolkata (approx. 200 Sq. ft).

As far as the properties situated in Mumbai are concerned, we appoint Yardi Prabhu Consultants Pvt. Ltd., 3, Samadhan Agarkar Chowk, Opp. Railway Station, Andheri (E), Mumbai, as the valuer. We direct the valuer to complete the valuation of the properties and submit a report expeditiously and at any rate, within six weeks from today to the share valuer in Kolkata.

As far as the properties in Kolkata are concerned, we are informed that M/s B. M. Chatrath & Co., Centre Point, 21, Old Court House Street, 4th Floor, Suite No. 440, Kolkata, is an approved valuer for both property and shares. Therefore, they are appointed for the purpose of valuation of the properties situated in Kolkata. The said valuation of the properties shall be completed expeditiously and at any rate within six weeks from today.

The valuation report of the properties in Mumbai shall then be made available to M/s B. M. Chatrath & Co. in Kolkata and based on the valuation of the properties, both in Kolkata and in Mumbai, the shares shall be valued. Needless to say that the 4 valuers are entitled to take into consideration all relevant

factors for the purpose of fair valuation of the property and the shares.

We also direct the share valuer to make a separate valuation of the 25% residuary right or interest in the property located at 214, BL Saha Road, Kolkata.

In case any of the valuers requires any assistance, it will be open to them to engage such assistants as required. We make it clear that it would be open to the appellant and her sons to visit the properties, both in Mumbai and Kolkata along with the valuers.

The reports on the valuation of the properties and the shares shall thereafter be submitted before this Court, before 26.04.2016.

All the valuations shall be made as on 31.03.2015. The order passed by the Company Law Board dated 31.10.1994 shall stand modified only to the above extent.

We expect that the parties shall fully cooperate with the valuers and facilitate the visit and the necessary follow up action.

Post for further orders on 26.04.2016.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan) Sr. P.A. Court Master