Board dismisses amendment applications as complex and irrelevant. VPM group can submit new documents. Independent valuer request pending.

The applications for amendments (CA Nos. 173 and 174 of 2014) were dismissed by the Board, finding them complex, irrelevant, and a result of afterthought. The VPM group was granted liberty to file newly discovered documents with an affidavit. The application for an independent valuer (CA No. 172 of 2014) will be considered after final arguments in CP No. 35 of 2013.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of an independent valuer.
2. Amendments in the original company petition (CP No. 29 of 2013).
3. Amendments in the written reply (CP No. 35 of 2013).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appointment of an Independent Valuer:
The VPM group filed Company Application No. 172 of 2014 in CP No. 29 of 2013, seeking an order to appoint an independent valuer to inspect the disputed property and submit a valuation report to the Board. This application will be considered after the conclusion of final arguments in CP No. 35 of 2013.

2. Amendments in the Original Company Petition (CP No. 29 of 2013):
The VPM group filed Company Application No. 173 of 2014, seeking amendments in the original company petition. The proposed amendments included introducing the background of the Maheshwari family, details of the "Kalyan land," an oral family arrangement, and additional reliefs. The RPM group opposed the amendments, arguing they were belated, introduced new and inconsistent facts, and would prejudice their rights. The Board found that the proposed amendments were complex, irrelevant, and a result of afterthought. The VPM group failed to prove that despite due diligence, these facts could not have been included earlier. Consequently, the application for amendments was dismissed.

3. Amendments in the Written Reply (CP No. 35 of 2013):
The VPM group also sought amendments in the written reply filed in CP No. 35 of 2013 through Company Application No. 174 of 2014. The RPM group opposed this application on similar grounds as above. The Board held that the proposed amendments were not bona fide and aimed to protract the hearing. The application for amendments was dismissed.

Additional Observations:
The Board allowed the VPM group to file documents discovered after the filing of the petitions, supported by an affidavit, within 15 days. The RPM group may file an affidavit in rebuttal within the next 15 days. The application for the appointment of an independent valuer will be listed along with the CP for remaining arguments.

Conclusion:
The applications for amendments (CA Nos. 173 and 174 of 2014) were dismissed. The VPM group was granted liberty to file newly discovered documents with an affidavit. The application for an independent valuer (CA No. 172 of 2014) will be considered after final arguments in CP No. 35 of 2013.

---