Delhi High Court
Hindustan Pencils Limited vs Swaroop Singh on 5 August, 1994
JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.
1. I have heard arguments in order to prima facie determine whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction as far as relief of rendition of accounts is concerned. This suit is based with regard to the infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiff and on the ground of passing off of the goods of the defendant as those of the plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff estimates that it would be entitled to approximately Rs. 10 lakhs if accounts are gone into and he fixed the value for purposes of Court fee of Rs. 1, 000/- and for the purposes of jurisdiction, he fixed the amount of Rs. 10, 00, 600/- The relief of injunction has also been sought in the plainti.
2. According to the rules framed by the Punjab High Court, which are applicable to Delhi, in a suit for rendition of accounts, the plaintiff is given a discretion to put any value for purposes of court fees and separate value for purposes of jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act pertaining to the valuation for the purposes of court fee in a suit for rendition of accounts came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a number of judgments.
3. In Meenakshisundram Chettiar vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar , had laid down that ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness of the valuation chosen by the plaintiff but plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this regard and if plaintiff chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure, it is tantamount to not exercising his right in this regard. In such a case it is not only open to the court but it is its duty to reject such a valuation. The difficulty which arises for consideration in such like suit is as to on what basis the plaintiff would be deemed to have manifestly and deliberately underestimated the relief for the purposes of court fees.
4. This was clarified by the Supreme Court in the judgment given in M/s. Commercial Aviation & Travel Co. vs. Vimal Pannalal, . In the said case also, the plaintiff had claimed that on rendition of accounts the plaintiff may be entitled to have Rs. 25 lakhs but he had valued the suit for purposes of court fee at Rs.500/-. The Supreme Court held as follows:-
"23. We are also of the view that the plaintiff cannot whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for the filing the suit most arbitrarily where there are positive materials and/or objective standards of valuation of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint. These materials and objective standards will also enable the court to determine the valuation for the purpose of Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Indeed, in Abdul Hamid Shamsi's case, it has been noticed by this court that the plaintiff has laid a claim to a sum of Rs. 1, 26, 776, 72 besides another sum of over Rs.84, 000/- as his share in the profit for the particular period by reference to the proceeding of the income tax Department mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint. Further, a copy of the profit and loss account for the calendar year 1979 was annexed by the plaintiff to the additional affidavit filed on his behalf before this court, which also gave positive indication as to the valuation of the relief. The plaintiff in that case valued the suit without making any reference whatsoever to those materials or objective standards available to him and in the context of those facts, this court made the above observation. But, if there be no material or objective standard, the plaintiff's valuation has to be accepted."
5. The Supreme Court thus clearly laid down that if from the averments in the plaint and the documents accompanying the plaint, there could be some material for coming to the conclusion that the valuation fixed by the plaintiff is arbitrarily low and in all probability, he would be entitled to recover a particular amount on rendition of accounts, in such a situation, the court could direct the proper valuation of the suit but if there is no such material available either in the plaint or in the documents accompanying the plaint and mere fact that plaintiff hopefully thinks that he would be entitled to a particular amount, the same would not furnish any material to the court for coming to the conclusion that valuation fixed by the plaintiff is deliberately low. This judgment approves the law laid down by Lahore High Court in Atma Ram Charan Das vs. Bisheshar Nath Dina Nath AIR 1935 Lahore 689 where the relief of dents to the impugned artistic work of the respondents had been devised/designed by keeping the artistic work of the petitioners as a model/guide. The impugned artistic work had been obtained by the respondents from the Registrar of Copyright by fraud and by suppression of facts and the petitioner's are persons aggrieved within the meaning of Section 50 of the Act in so far as the respondent had fraudulently, mischievously and mala fide obtained the registration of copyright in a work which is identical/deceptively similar to the work of the petitioner's prior adopted, rendition of accounts was valued at Rs. 500/- while plaintiff stated that a sum of Rs. 8, 000/- would be due to him on rendition of accounts. The Lahore High Court held that plaintiff could not be prejudiced or damnified merely because he added to the plaint a computation which was unnecessary for him to give.
6. Following this judgment of the Supreme Court, I am of the prima facie view that the valuation given by the plaintiff in respect of the relief of rendition of accounts does not call for any interference at present.
Suit No. 1737/947. Suit be registered. Summons be issued to the defendants on deposit of process fee and registered covers, returnable on 27th September, 1994.
I.A. /94 (Under Order 39 R.1 &2)
8. Be registered. Notice for the date fixed.
9. Keeping in view the facts coming out on the record and the documents accompanying them, I find that this is a fit case for grant of ex-parte interim injunction. I grant ex-parte interim injunction in terms of Para 18 to the effect that defendants, their servants, agents, employees, stockings or any other person on their behalf are restrained from selling of bonded lead HB pencils in a carton like Annexure "Y" infringing the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiff and thereby enabling them to pass off their goods as the goods of the plaintiff in a carton like Annexure "X".
10. Plaintiff to comply with provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within seven days.