Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Petition for Cross-Examination of Valuation Report - A petition can be filed in court to request cross-examination of a valuation report, especially when the report's credibility or accuracy is challenged during proceedings. Such petitions are typically filed as part of the evidence process to allow the opposing party or interested parties to examine the valuation expert under oath.
V.I.D.C. THR. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WARDHA vs NARAYAN BHAGWANT KADAM, WARDHA and 2 OTRS - Bombay
, 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63563, 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 106Grounds for Filing the Petition - The petition is usually filed when the valuation report is relied upon in the case but has questionable basis, lacks supporting documents, or the opposing party seeks to test the report's validity through cross-examination. For example, if the valuation report lacks proper description, area details, or is done casually without substantiation, a petition can be filed to cross-examine the expert.
TANAJI TUKARAM JADHAV vs ANANDRAO BAPU GHATE JADHAV AND ORS - Bombay
, 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63563Procedure and Court's Discretion - Courts generally permit cross-examination of valuation experts upon filing such petitions, provided the party demonstrates a valid reason. The court may also decide the order of cross-examination, especially if one party has already cross-examined the expert. The right to cross-examine can be waived or forfeited if not exercised timely. 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 106,
ELEGANT MARBLES AND GRANI INDUSTRIES LTD vs SATISH DHIRAJLAL VITHALANI AND ORS - Bombay
, 2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5069References to Specific Cases - Several cases illustrate the filing of petitions to cross-examine valuation reports:
V.I.D.C. THR. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WARDHA vs NARAYAN BHAGWANT KADAM, WARDHA and 2 OTRS - Bombay
ELEGANT MARBLES AND GRANI INDUSTRIES LTD vs SATISH DHIRAJLAL VITHALANI AND ORS - Bombay
, 2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5069Analysis and ConclusionA petition to cross-examine a valuation report is a procedural tool used to scrutinize the credibility and basis of valuation evidence presented in court. Filing such a petition allows the opposing party to question the expert witness under oath, challenge the report's validity, and ensure a fair evaluation of the evidence. Courts generally favor such petitions when justified, but the right to cross-examine can be forfeited if not exercised timely or properly. The process underscores the importance of thorough examination and proper procedural adherence in valuation disputes.
In legal proceedings involving property disputes, mergers, or financial assessments, a often plays a pivotal role. But what happens when you believe the report is flawed, biased, or lacks proper foundation? Many parties wonder: What is the Petition that can be Filed in Court to Cross Examine a ? This question arises frequently in Indian courts, where challenging such reports requires navigating principles of and judicial precedents.
This blog post explores the process, grounds, and precedents for filing a petition to cross-examine a valuer. While there's no blanket statutory right, courts may permit it under specific circumstances to ensure fairness. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
In the Indian judiciary, there's generally no explicit provision mandating of a valuer. However, principles of —such as the right to a —can open the door for such requests. Courts have recognized that denying a party the chance to challenge a contested may violate these principles.
For instance, parties must typically be notified of the valuation inspection date and allowed to be present, guiding the valuer as needed 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 337. If serious objections exist, courts may allow of the valuer or commissioner to test the report's credibility 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 337 1965 0 Supreme(Ori) 23.
demands transparency in valuations. Interested parties should receive notice of inspections and opportunities to participate. Failure to do so can ground a petition for 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 337.
Even without direct provisions, courts permit challenges via additional evidence or when justice requires it 1965 0 Supreme(Ori) 23. The Supreme Court has noted that documents used in are considered proved, implying a reciprocal right to question the valuer's credibility 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1287.
If a lower court refuses , a under can argue violation of rights 1979 0 Supreme(All) 145.
From additional case insights, courts have emphasized timely exercise of this right. In one ruling, The petitioner shall have the liberty to cross examine the respondent on the new in accordance with law 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 229. Conversely, delays post-report filing may bar reopening : And once the valuer report is filed, I see that there is no reason now, to allow the petitioners to reopen the issue of cross examination, as to the valuation of the property, again in the present Petition 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 1062 2009 0 Supreme(Bom) 1303.
A strong petition hinges on compelling grounds:- Violation of : No notice of inspection or presence during valuation 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 337.- Serious Objections to the Report: Lacks property description, area details, or supporting evidence. For example, a valuer admitting in to omitting key details undermined the report
.- Questionable Basis: Casual assessment without substantiation, as seen in cases where reports were challenged for inadequate methodology 2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 10047.
Other sources highlight scenarios like if not exercised timely: the defendant refused to cross-examine PW1, leading to waived opportunities
.
In practice, petitions succeed when reports lack rigor. One case allowed scrutiny after the valuer failed to mention property details
. Another permitted liberty to cross-examine on a 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 229.
.
These examples from
,
, and others illustrate courts' balanced approach.
.
Supporting Documents Checklist:- copy.- Objection affidavit.- Case law citations: 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 337, 1965 0 Supreme(Ori) 23, 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1287.
Courts may deny if the request seems dilatory or if evidence suffices without . Best practices include:- Acting swiftly upon report receipt.- Documenting all procedural lapses.- Using petitions as part of broader evidence strategy.
In one instance, a challenged directions, underscoring procedural petitions' role
.
Filing a petition to cross-examine a is a vital tool in Indian courts to uphold , though not explicitly codified. Success depends on strong grounds like procedural flaws or report inadequacies, backed by precedents such as 1965 0 Supreme(Ori) 23 and 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 337.
Key Takeaways:- Leverage for notice and presence rights.- File petitions highlighting specific objections.- Act timely to avoid forfeiture.- Always pair with professional legal counsel.
For disputed valuations, this petition ensures thorough scrutiny, promoting fair outcomes.
report. ... No.1 being Valuation Report dated 1st November, author of report DW-2 has proved the report, the Court below ought Deshpande in his cross-examination has admitted that no architect st November 2021.
Learned Referal Court ought to have held in view of cross of Shri Mankar that the valuation report submitted by Shri Mankar, Rs.47,773/-. ... He has also admitted in cross-examination that he has not mentioned the description of the property or area. ... In view of these evidence on record, the learned Referal Court erroneously relied on the report of Mr. ... 1 FA 413.09.doc
The said petition was filed by the present petitioner only. ... It was filed mainly on the background that the Executing Court directed the 2.WPNo.49742016.doc
and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition ... He submits referred to the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief tendered by the th December Now there is absolutely nothing in the evidence of AW1 or for that matter in the cross-examination
The Commissioner was thereafter called as a witness to prove his report. The petitioner-Defendant No.1 cross-examined the Commissioner. The defendant No.2 thereafter filed a petition to cross-examine Commissioner. Defendant No.1 filed an objection challenging the maintainability of the petition. ... The Court below, by the order impugned, allowed the #....
the said defendant refused to cross-examine PW 1. ... his vakilpatra and yet, did not cross- the said litigant either declines to cross-examine or seeks an adjournment. ... by the plaintiff to re-examine PW 1, defendant 40 would commence the cross-examination of similar order has been passed on 8/10/2021, forfeiting the right (to cross-#HL....
, the petitioner chose not to cross-examine afforded to cross-examine but he failed to exercise his right. ... , when the petitioner failed to attend the proceedings and avoided to cross-examine the to be examined during the course of the enquiry, but since the examining any witness, which he declined and he even did not bother to cross-exami....
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted as follows : P.W.2, who gave the valuation report, did not place any material to substantiate the value arrived at by him. This came out clearly during the cross examination of P.W.2. ... In view of the fact that the value fixed by P.W.2 in respect of the subject property is not substantiated by a single document and that such a valuation has been....
1) Respondent no. 3 Plaintiff filed ... report of the Petitioner does not 32.5163.22 wp.doc
Gruelle then filed a supplemental report and changed his opinion on the land’s highest and best use. ... This $850,000 valuation was 7 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1532 Doc: 43 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 8 of 19 ... based on the land’s deed acreage -- 400 acres -- rather than the county’s geographical information ....
The petitioner shall have the liberty to cross examine the respondent on the new valuation report in accordance with law. It is also seen that the report now sought to be produced on record of Mr. Llyod Macedo which is obtained on 30/9/2015 also states the same valuation.”, shall stand removed from the impugned order forthwith.
The Notification dated 31st October, 2014 issued by the Collector, Uddam Singh Nagar is also filed. She has informed to the court that the value of this property as per the circle rate as on date i.e. 28th May, 2015 is Rs.8,05,74,400/- (Rupees Eight Crores Five Lacs Seventy Four Thousand only). A copy of the valuation report dated 9th May, 2015 is filed. U.S.N. admeasuring 50359.12 sq. mt. with a market value of Rs.125897800/-(Rupees Twelve Crore Fifty Eight Lac Ninety Seven ....
And once the valuer report is filed, I see that there is no reason now, to allow the petitioners to reopen the issue of cross examination, as to the valuation of the property, again in the present Petition. It has been decided rightly by the Arbitrator in view of agreement dated 20/03/2007.
It has been decided rightly by the arbitrator in view of agreement dated 20.03.2007. And once the valuer's report is filed, I see that there is no reason now, to allow the petitioners to reopen the issue of cross-examination, as to the valuation of the property, again in the present petition. And once the valuer's report is filed, I see that there is no reason now, to allow the petitioners to reopen the issue of cross-examination, as to the valuation of the property....
This valuation report also mentioned that the entire property was tenanted and the owners were deriving a rental income of Rs.2,97,410.4068 per month. R.J.Sethna came to be filed as annexure to an affidavit of the trustee R.N. Bhavnagari, affirmed on 24.10.1985. This valuation report is filed on record in Writ Petition No.1143 of 1990. That, ultimately, by his order dated 10.12.1985, the Charity Commissioner State of Maharashtra granted his sanction under Section 36(1)(a) for....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
