SURESH LACHHMANDAS RAHEJA Vs. FERRANI HOTELS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Applications come up before the Court under Rule 133 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. Rule 133 reads thus :

(2.) By an order dated 17 January, 2008 a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal 270 of 2007 directed the Plaintiff to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 200 Crores to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. Initially by an order dated 29 January, 2008 the Prothonotary merely accepted a security bond and undertaking of the First Respondent. This order was set aside by a Learned Single Judge on 1 July, 2010. While construing the order of the Division Bench, the Learned Single Judge directed the Plaintiff to furnish security consisting of tangible assets of the value of Rs. 200 Crores to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The order of the Learned Single Judge was confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench on 29 July, 2010. A Special Leave Petition against the order of the Division Bench directing the furnishing of security was dismissed on 4 October, 2010. The Plaintiff moved an interim application before the Supreme Court seeking an extension of time by a period of twelve weeks to furnish security. The Supreme Court by an order dated 16 November, 2010 extended time by a period of two weeks.

(3.) Before the Prothonotary and Senior Master the Plaintiff relied on valuation reports of two valuers (i) A.V. Shetty & Associates and (ii) Perfect Valuations and Consultants. The Plaintiff offered by way of security a total of thirteen flats which are owned by the two sons of the Plaintiff, Mr. Rahul Raheja and Mr. Ashish Raheja. One set of seven flats has been converted into a single flat while another set of six flats has similarly been converted into a single unit. The valuation which was placed on the flats by A.V. Shetty & Associates was Rs. 90.07 Crores and Rs. 143.78 Crores. The second valuer, Perfect Valuations and Consultants valued the flats at Rs. 92.65 Crores and Rs. 147.90 Crores. On the other hand, the Third Defendant relied on a valuation report of Rane Engineers and Surveyors. The valuer adopted a valuation of Rs. 16.92 Crores and Rs. 25.57 Crores. The Prothonotary and Senior Master accepted the contention of the First and Third Defendants that the valuation reports on which reliance was placed by the Plaintiff could not be accepted. While accepting the valuation report placed on record by the First and Third Defendants, the Prothonotary and Senior Master accepted a valuation of the flats offered as security at Rs. 44.27 Crores. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff was directed to furnish additional security so as to make good the deficiency in order to fulfil the direction that the total security offered must be to the extent of Rs. 200 Crores.