Delhi High Court
Rajneesh Garg Trading As Aggarwal ... vs Arun Singla Trading As Singla Chemicals on 29 August, 2006
Author: Reva Khetrapal
Bench: Reva Khetrapal
JUDGMENT Reva Khetrapal, J.
Page 0282
1. The present suit for perpetual injunction, passing off of trade mark, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts, damages and for delivery up has been filed by the plaintiff who is engaged in the business of Page 0283 manufacturing, marketing and trading of adhesives of all kinds under the trade mark/trade name 'INDIACOL' from the year 1994 continuously. The plaintiff is carrying on his business as Aggarwal Enterprises while the defendant is trading as Singla Chemicals.
2. The plaintiff claims that registration of his aforesaid trade mark is being proceeded with by the Registrar of Trade Marks under No.735566 in class 01 under the Trade Marks Act. He further claims that his aforesaid trade mark has acquired considerable goodwill and reputation and that the defendant in order to encash upon the same is selling his goods under the trade mark 'NEW INDIA-COL' in place of the plaintiff's trade mark 'INDIACOL' with identical colour combination, get up, placement of features, motifs, etc. ? the entire appearance of the two packings being identical. Hence the present suit.
3. The defendant, on receipt of notice of filing of the suit, has filed the present application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff was liable to value each claim separately and to pay ad valorem court fees on the amount claimed by him towards rendition of accounts. The plaintiff, though he has contested the application by filing a reply to the same, has not cared to address arguments on the application, despite the fact that the case was adjourned to enable him to argue the same.
4. The relevant paragraph relating to valuation of the suit for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is paragraph 17 of the plaint, which is as under:
17. That the value for the purposes of the court fees and jurisdiction in respect of the relief in fixed as follows:
a) for a decree for permanent injunction restraining passing off, this relief is valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- and court fees of Rs. 20/- is affixed thereon.
b) decree for permanent injunction restraining, Infringement of copyright, this relief is valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- and court fee of Rs. 20/- is paid.
c) for an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendant, this relief is valued for the purposes of court fees at Rs. 200/- and court fees of Rs. 20/- is affixed thereon.
This relief is valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 20,01,000/-. The plaintiff undertakes to pay such additional court fees as may be directed to the plaintiff by this Hon'ble court on the ascertainment of the correct and true rendition of accounts of profits so found due to the plaintiff.
d) for an order for delivery up, this relief is valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- and court fees of Rs. 20/- is affixed thereon.
The suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is total valued at Rs. 20,01,800/- and court fee of Rs. 80/- is affixed.?
5. Paragraph 18, which contains the prayer clause, is as follows:
18. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that a decree may be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the following effect:
Page 0284 a. A decree for permanent injunction and an order of this Hon'ble Court restraining the defendant himself, his servants, agents, dealers, stockists and all other persons acting on their behalf from using the offending trade mark ?NEW INDIA-COL and/or INDIA-COL? in respect of adhesives and any other deceptively similar trade mark so as to pass off their goods as the goods of the plaintiff.
b. A decree for permanent injunction and an order of this Hon'ble Court restraining the defendant himself, his servants, agents, brokers, dealers, stockist and all other persons acting on their behalf from using the offending copyright and other deceptively similar artistic work as to infringement of copyright of the plaintiff.
c. An order for delivery upon affidavit by the defendants to the plaintiff all the offending material i.e. packing material including boxes, strips, labels, blocks, pamphlets, literatures and any other material bearing the offending trade mark New INDIA-COL and/or INDIA-COL and/or any other deceptively similar trade marks for the purpose of destruction and erasure.
d. An order of decree for damages to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs suffered by the plaintiff on account of the illegal trade activities of the defendant.
e. An order for costs of the proceedings.
f. For such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The short question which arises is whether the plaintiff, having valued the suit for purposes of claiming rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendant in the sum of Rs. 20,01,000/- , is liable to pay ad valorem court fees?
7. The settled legal position is that the provisions of Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act have bestowed discretion upon the plaintiff to value the relief sought in the plaint/memorandum of appeal. At the same time, though the plaintiff has been left unfettered by the legislature to value his suit according to his own standards, the courts have time and again emphasised that the suit valuation must not appear to be arbitrarily arrived at and must appear to be a reasonable estimate (Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. v. Vimla Pannalal , Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar , Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid and Pfizer Products Inc. v. B.L. and Co. (2006) 129 DLT 327). The common thread running through the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and this Court is that in a suit for rendition of accounts under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is free to tentatively value the relief sought by him, but the said valuation cannot be arbitrary; and where there is basis available for valuation of court fees, any arbitrary valuation of the same by the plaintiff will not be countenanced by the courts.
Page 0285
8. In the present case, the plaintiff has valued each claim separately, but ad valorem court fees has not been paid on the same. Thus, for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendant, the relief is valued for the purposes of court fees at Rs. 200/- and court fees of Rs. 20/- is affixed thereon, while for purposes of jurisdiction, the valuation is at Rs. 20,01,000/-. In paragraph 18, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for damages to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- suffered by the plaintiff on account of the illegal trade activities of the defendant, meaning thereby that the plaintiff himself expects that at the time of rendition of accounts, the plaintiff shall be entitled to an amount of over Rs. 20,00,000/-. Plaintiff is thus required to pay court fees on the amount of Rs. 20,01,100/-. Plaintiff is accordingly directed to make up the deficiency of court fees within a period of 15 days, failing which it is clarified that the plaint will be liable to be rejected.
9. List before the Joint Registrar on 9th October, 2006 for further proceedings.