AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for M. P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Pachama, District Sehore VS M/S. Modi Transport Service...

Checking relevance for Union Of India VS District Judge, Udhampur...

Checking relevance for Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation VS Vincent Daniel...

Checking relevance for Cyrus Rustom Patel VS Charity Commissioner Maharashtra, State...

Checking relevance for Faqir Chand Gulati VS Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow VS Sub Divisional Officer/The Registrar Of Public Trusts...

Checking relevance for Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Shaheed Memorial Scty. (Regd.)...

Checking relevance for Sanjeev Kumar VS Rajaram...

Checking relevance for Shantaram Dattatray Kekan VS Bhausaheb Karbhari Kekan...

Checking relevance for Crystal Construction Company VS State of Maharashtra...

Checking relevance for Phoola Devi @ Phula Devi VS Banwari Lal...

Checking relevance for Gamidi Koteswar Rao, S/o Peda Venkata Rao VS Gorle Rama Ratnam, W/o Ramu...

Checking relevance for MAHENDRANATH VS PURNANANDA...

Checking relevance for D. D. A. VS Joginder S. Monga...

Checking relevance for Harvinder Kaur VS Godha Ram...

Checking relevance for Lucknow Development Authority VS Krishna Gopal Lahoti...

Checking relevance for A. L. A. Firm VS Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras...

Checking relevance for Bhopal Sugar Industries LTD. VS Income-tax Officer, Bhopal...

Checking relevance for Mangayarakarasi Ammal VS Nagammal...

Checking relevance for Subhash Chander Abrol VS State Of Punjab & Ors. ...

Checking relevance for VIMLA JAIN VS STATE OF U. P. ...

Checking relevance for SAFEGUARD PACKAGING SYSTEMS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA...

Checking relevance for Daewoo Motors India Ltd. VS Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi...

Checking relevance for Sunil Wali VS Maharaj Krishan Raina...

AI Overview...

Determination of Market Rate - The courts have the discretion under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC to appoint a Commissioner for local inspection or to ascertain the market value of property when deemed necessary for elucidating matters in dispute. Such appointment requires a specific reason or justification from the court as to why local investigation is necessary. The powers are discretionary but not unbounded, and the report or evidence of the Commissioner becomes part of the record and can influence the case outcome ["SHADAKSHARAPPA S/O VERANNA vs KUMARI VIJAYALAXMI AND ORS - Karnataka"] ["Shadaksharappa v. Kumari Vijayalaxmi - Karnataka"] ["COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED - Delhi"].
When the determination of market rate or value is part of a collaboration agreement, courts are not automatically obligated to appoint a local commissioner. Instead, the appointment depends on whether the court finds local investigation necessary to clarify disputes or ascertain property value, and this necessity must be supported by reasons. The discretion lies with the court, and it must justify the appointment based on the facts of the case ["SHADAKSHARAPPA S/O VERANNA vs KUMARI VIJAYALAXMI AND ORS - Karnataka"] ["Shadaksharappa v. Kumari Vijayalaxmi - Karnataka"].
Related insights from case law indicate that courts have exercised this discretion in cases involving land valuation, market value ascertainment, or technical disputes, emphasizing the need for reasons before appointing a commissioner. For example, in cases where the land transfer date was contested, or valuation needed to be established for property, courts appointed commissioners after providing reasons for necessity ["COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED - Delhi"] ["COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED - Delhi"] ["COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED - Delhi"].
Conclusion - The mere inclusion of market rate determination clauses in collaboration agreements does not impose an obligation on courts to appoint a local commissioner automatically. Instead, courts have the discretion to do so when they find local investigation necessary to resolve disputes or determine property or market values, provided they articulate proper reasons for such appointment ["SHADAKSHARAPPA S/O VERANNA vs KUMARI VIJAYALAXMI AND ORS - Karnataka"] ["Shadaksharappa v. Kumari Vijayalaxmi - Karnataka"].

Is the Court Obligated to Appoint a Local Commissioner for Market Rate Determination in Collaboration Agreements?

In the realm of business partnerships, collaboration agreements often hinge on precise valuations like market rates for assets, royalties, or shares. But what happens when disputes arise over these rates? A key question emerges: when determination of market rate is part of a collaboration agreement, is the court obligated to appoint a local commissioner?

This issue blends contract law, procedural fairness, and judicial discretion. While no direct precedent mandates automatic appointment, courts prioritize accurate valuations to prevent undervaluation or unfair dealings. This post delves into legal principles, case analyses, and procedural safeguards, drawing from key judgments to provide clarity.

The Role of Market Rate Determination in Collaboration Agreements

Collaboration agreements frequently involve sharing revenues, royalties, or assets based on market rates. For instance, one case involved a royalty at 5% on domestic pesticide sales and 7% on exports under a collaboration agreement dated 20-5-1992. Eid Parry (India) Ltd. VS Commissioner of Service Tax, Pondy Such clauses ensure equitable distribution but can spark disputes if market rates fluctuate or are contested.

Courts intervene to enforce fair market value, modifying interim injunctions in asset sales to curb cash dealings or undervaluation. In a dispute over shareholding, the court stressed transactions must reflect fair market value to avoid forgery or harm. Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Shaheed Memorial Scty. (Regd.) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 666 This underscores transparency in banking and sales during litigation.

Other examples include:- Allocating 30% saleable area (19 flats) as consideration in a 27.09.2012 agreement. Mridul Dhanuka HUF through its Karta Mridul Dhanuka VS ILD HOUSING PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 6319- Revenue sharing in tripartite deals where buyers must familiarize with collaboration terms. Janpriya Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. VS Amit Soni - 2021 Supreme(SC) 1029

These highlight market rate as a cornerstone, but determination often requires expert input.

Court's Discretion in Appointing Local Commissioners

Under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Order 26 Rule 9 empowers courts to appoint local commissioners for local investigations essential to just decisions. The object... is not to collect evidence on behalf of either party, but to elucidate any point left doubtful.Santokh Singh & Ors. VS Majinder Singh & Ors. - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 2819

Appointment is discretionary, not obligatory. Courts under Delhi High Court rules (Chapter XA) have broad powers, especially for expediting cases, even without party consent if reasons are recorded. FASHION LINKERS VS SAVITRI DEVI - 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 632 Key safeguards include:- Monitoring progress.- Restricting commissioners from judicial functions like rejecting evidence.- Ensuring accountability, costs, and potential replacement.

In eviction proceedings, courts appoint commissioners for site plans when necessary for adjudication, upholding powers under Delhi Rent Control Act and CPC. Mohd. Tahir VS Khwaja Syed Mohd. Mehdi Nizami - 2019 Supreme(Del) 2583 However, refusal to appoint does not prejudice rights and is not revisable, as it falls under pure discretion. Gurnam Singh VS Dayal Singh - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2010 Santokh Singh & Ors. VS Majinder Singh & Ors. - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 2819

Intersection: Market Rates and Commissioner Appointments

No binding precedent directly ties market rate disputes in collaboration agreements to mandatory commissioner appointments. Instead, principles interconnect:- Fair valuation prevents irreparable harm, as in asset sale modifications. Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Shaheed Memorial Scty. (Regd.) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 666- Commissioners may assess property values transparently, monitored for accuracy. FASHION LINKERS VS SAVITRI DEVI - 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 632

For example:- In arbitration-linked collaborations, courts scrutinize clauses but prioritize governing agreements. Land Mark Apartments Pvt. Ltd. VS Sombir - 2013 Supreme(P&H) 29- Export agency commissions (12.5% vs. 5% in collaboration) evidence market rates without mandating commissioners. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED- Development delays in projects tied to collaboration timelines emphasize contractual obligations over automatic judicial tools. AUTOMAX CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED VS SPAZE TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 5661

Courts exercise judicial discretion judiciously, recording reasons to align with justice. Consent aids but is not required. FASHION LINKERS VS SAVITRI DEVI - 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 632

Exceptions, Limitations, and Procedural Safeguards

Appointments are not routine:- Commissioners cannot usurp judicial roles, e.g., evidence rejection. FASHION LINKERS VS SAVITRI DEVI - 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 632- In unauthorized construction cases, evidence stage precedes appointment if onus is on parties. Mohd. Tahir VS Khwaja Syed Mohd. Mehdi Nizami - 2019 Supreme(Del) 2583- Policy shifts, like drug pricing below 5% market rates, show contractual flexibility without commissioner mandates. Maharashtra State Co-operative Consumers Federation Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 2207

Violations, such as circumventing land laws via collaborations, lead to scrutiny but not automatic appointments. ASHOK MADAN VS STATE OF H. P. - 2002 Supreme(HP) 216

Practical Recommendations for Parties

To navigate these issues:1. Incorporate clear valuation mechanisms in agreements, like independent experts.2. Seek consent-based commissioners for efficiency.3. Request appointments judiciously, citing urgency or complexity.4. Follow safeguards to avoid challenges.

Courts may appoint in old suits, urgent matters, or multi-witness exams, promoting expeditious disposal. FASHION LINKERS VS SAVITRI DEVI - 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 632

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Generally, courts are not obligated to appoint local commissioners solely because market rate determination is part of a collaboration agreement. Discretion prevails, guided by fairness, CPC provisions, and High Court rules. Prioritize transparent valuations to minimize disputes.

Key Takeaways:- Focus on fair market value to safeguard interests. Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Shaheed Memorial Scty. (Regd.) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 666- Leverage judicial discretion with recorded reasons. FASHION LINKERS VS SAVITRI DEVI - 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 632- Use commissioners for elucidation, not evidence collection. Santokh Singh & Ors. VS Majinder Singh & Ors. - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 2819

This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.

References:- Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Shaheed Memorial Scty. (Regd.) - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 666: Injunction modifications for fair valuation.- FASHION LINKERS VS SAVITRI DEVI - 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 632: Delhi High Court rules on commissioners.- Additional insights from Santokh Singh & Ors. VS Majinder Singh & Ors. - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 2819, Eid Parry (India) Ltd. VS Commissioner of Service Tax, Pondy, and others as noted.

#CollaborationAgreement, #LocalCommissioner, #LegalValuation

SHADAKSHARAPPA S/O VERANNA vs KUMARI VIJAYALAXMI AND ORS - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1389

Under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code, the Court can appoint the Commissioner for local inspection; a) If the court deems that local investigation is necessary for elucidating any matter in dispute; b) For ascertaining the market value of any property, or any mesne ... However, such an order to appoint a Commissioner for local inspection has to be preceded by a reason as to why the Court deems it ap....

Shadaksharappa v. Kumari Vijayalaxmi - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31145

Under Order XXVI R.9 of the Code, the Court can appoint the Commissioner for local inspection; ... a) If the court deems that local investigation is necessary for elucidating any matter in dispute; ... b) For ascertaining the market value of any property, or any mesne profits or damages or annual net ... However, such an order to appoint a Commissioner for local inspection has to be preceded by a reason as to why....

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED

restricted by resorting to the clause in the collaboration agreement in which the agency commission had been pegged at 5%, by treating the same as evidence of fair market value. ... The said Export Sales Agency Agreement provided for payment of commission to GGE at the rate of 12.5% of the net FOB export price as against 5%, as indicated above, in the collaboration agreement of 05.06.1990. ... The said foreign collaboration agre....

AUTOMAX CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED VS SPAZE TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 5661

to 65% share of the total project under the Collaboration Agreement. ... It is further submitted that in 2010, the Applicant and the Respondent entered into a Collaboration Agreement on 15.10.2010 (hereinafter referred to as “Collaboration Agreement”). ... The Respondent had undertaken to develop / construct the basements by 15.01.2012 as per the Collaboration Agreement and to complete the Project by 15.01.2017 as per the Supplementary Coll....

ASHOK MADAN VS STATE OF H. P. - 2002 Supreme(HP) 216

That is why; the petitioner adopted the mode of acquiring the land by the Collaboration Agreement, General Power of Attorney and Partnership Deed. ... State of H.P. & Anr.133 the developers but to enter into a collaboration agreement for the purposes of constructing building/flats and for development of the land in question. ... The petitioner is a developer, builder and contractor, who in terms of collaboration agreement and partnership deed carried out constructions and got his remun....

MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BERHAD vs COMPETITION COMMISSION

let it continue with no one being obligated to maintain or terminate it. ... (c) Page 808, Part C (Vol. 3) Record of Appeal: “49. The Collaboration Agreement is clearly an agreement entered into by the parties to share the market in relation to aviation services.” ... [246] At any rate the Agreement was only at its conditional agreement stage and if the MyCC does not give its approval, the Agreement would have to....

(c) Page 808, Part C (Vol 3) Record of Appeal: "49. The Collaboration Agreement is clearly an agreement entered into by the parties to share the market in relation to aviation services." ... Whether The Object Of The Collaboration Agreement Was To Share "Market"? ... where the Parties let it continue with no one being obligated to maintain or terminate it. ... [246] At any rate the Agreement#HL_....

Janpriya Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. VS Amit Soni - 2021 Supreme(SC) 1029

The NCDRC has proceeded to hold that it is pertinent to note that the appellant was the signing and confirming party. The buyer in terms of the tripartite agreement must be understood to have familiarised itself with the terms of the collaboration agreement. Clause 4.1 contemplates revenue sharing and this clause is part of the collaboration agreement.

Santokh Singh & Ors. VS Majinder Singh & Ors. - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 2819

8. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, empowers the court to appoint a Local Commissioner to make local investigations, when the court is of the opinion that the same is necessary for the just decision of the case. The object behind this provision is not to collect the evidence on behalf of either of the party, but to elucidate any point, which is left doubtful, after the evidence has been produced before the court.

Mohd. Tahir VS Khwaja Syed Mohd. Mehdi Nizami - 2019 Supreme(Del) 2583

The onus to prove that the unauthorized and illegal construction is carried out is on the petitioner who has to prove the same by leading evidence and the case is already at the stage of petitioner's evidence, the petitioner can prove this fact by leading evidence to this effect. The discretion to appoint a Local Commissioner lies with the Court and I feel that there is no need for the appointment of Local Commissioner at this stage. Accordingly, application of the petitioner is dismissed.

Gurnam Singh VS Dayal Singh - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2010

Refusal to appoint Local Commissioner is nothing to do with the rights of the parties. It is squarely covered under the discretion of the Court and in case such discretion is refused, no right of the party is prejudiced, therefore, revision is incompetent against such order. 5. The order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner does not decide any issue on merit inasmuch as that no right of the either party is adjudicated by such order for the purpose of the suit and, therefore, such order is held to be not revisable.

Maharashtra State Co-operative Consumers Federation Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 2207

There is no complaint from any quarters much less from anybody who is treated or admitted as a Indoor Patient at public hospital that the distribution of the drugs was not at the price but a higher rate. The petitioner is obligated to sell drugs and medicines at the rate or price which is lesser than 5% of the market rates.