Delhi High Court - Orders
Nupur Mehta vs Bennett Coleman And Company Ltd. And Ors on 11 September, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 376/2025 & I.A. 14040/2025
NUPUR MEHTA .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Vidit Garg, Advocate
versus
BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.
.....Defendants
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 11.09.2025
1. The present suit has been filed for permanent and mandatory injunction and compensation for violation of the plaintiff's image rights and defamation caused by the defendants.
2. The issue arising for consideration in the suit is as to whether a plaintiff who seeks relief of rendition of accounts and affixes a value of Rs. 10 crores for the purposes of bringing the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court under the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 ['Act of 1887']; would be entitled to value the said relief for the purposes of the Court fees at a distinct amount of Rs. 200/- under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ['Act of 1870'] or would the plaintiff liable to pay ad- valorem Court fees on the value of Rs. 10 crores affixed by it in the plaint for the purposes of jurisdiction under the Act of 1887.
CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 1 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 Brief history of this case
3. To bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff had averred a value of Rs. 10 crores at paragraph no. 28 of the original plaint dated 20.05.2025. The said paragraph was vague as it failed to assign specific values to the five (5) prayer(s). For reference paragraph nos. 28 and 29 of the original plaint as well as the prayer clauses of the original plaint are reproduced as under: -
"28. That the Plaintiff is unable to ascertain the value of the present suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, and same is valued tentatively at Rs.10,00,00,000/- (INR Ten Crores Only) subject to the final valuation by this Hon'ble Court and for the purpose of Court fees, value of relief of Permanent, John Doe and Mandatory Injunction is valued at Rs. 200/- each and the relief of compensation for violation of image rights, slander, defamation is tentatively valued at Rs. 200/- subject to final valuation by this Hon'ble Court. Advalorem Court fees on damages will be paid on ascertainment of damages by the Court. That on valuation of relief sought by the Hon'ble High Court, in case of any deficiency in court fees, Plaintiff undertakes to pay deficient fees as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court as per the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
29. That this Hon'ble Court has the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the present matter, and there is no legal embargo in exercise of jurisdiction by the Hon'ble Court. ...
PRAYER WHEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
A. Pass a decree for Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendants from sharing, disseminating, or publishing the defamatory video of the Plaintiff through any medium or platform;
B. Pass a decree for Jon Doe Injunction, restraining any person from sharing, disseminating, or publishing the defamatory video of Plaintiff through any medium or CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 2 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 platform;
C. Pass a decree for Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 5 to remove the defamatory video of Plaintiff from their social media platforms;
D. Pass a decree for compensation jointly and severally against the Defendants for the violation of image rights, slander and defamation caused to the Plaintiff on account of acts and omissions of Defendants;
AND/OR E. Pass any other such order(s), relief(s) and/or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. The suit was first listed before this Court on 29.05.2025, wherein the learned counsel for the plaintiff orally clarified that the prayer clause 'D' seeking compensation for defamation and slander in the original plaint has been valued at Rs. 10 crores. In this background, vide order dated 29.05.2025 this Court directed the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the valuation of Rs. 10 crores within four (4) weeks. It was clarified that if the Court fees is not paid, the suit shall stand rejected.
5. At that stage, on 29.05.2025 itself learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he would move an appropriate application to re-assess the damages and pay court fees on the re-assessed damages. This request of the plaintiff for seeking amendment of the plaint was recorded with liberty reserved.
6. In these facts, the plaintiff filed I.A. 15890/2025 for amending paragraph no. 28 of the original plaint and introduced a fresh prayer clause for seeking relief of rendition of accounts. The plaintiff sought a separate prayer for decree of rendition of accounts for illegal use of the plaintiff's CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 3 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 image rights.
In the said application it was averred that the new prayer for decree of rendition of accounts is valued for jurisdiction at Rs. 10 crores. In addition, it was averred that for the prayer of compensation for defamation, the said relief is being valued at Rs. 200/-. The proposed amended paragraph 28 and amended prayer clause mentioned of the amended plaint reads as under: -
Amended plaint "28. That the Plaintiff tentatively value:
I. The relief of Permanent, John Doe and Mandatory Injunction Rs. 200/- each for the purpose of Court fees and Suit Valuation.
II. The relief of compensation for defamation is tentatively valued at Rs. 200/- (subject to final valuation by this Hon'ble Court) for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
III. The relief of rendition of accounts, (as allowed in case of infringement of trademark under section 135 Trademark Marks Act, 1999, Section 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 108 of Patent Act, 1970), as per section 7 of the Court Fees Act and section 9 of Suit Valuation Act and Delhi High Court Rules, for the purpose of Court Fees is valued at Rs. 200/- and for the purpose of jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is valued at Rs. 10,00,00,000/-.
That the plaintiff undertakes to pay ad-valorem court fees on assessment of damages by this Hon'ble Court as per section 11 of the Court Fees Act.
PRAYER WHEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
A. Pass a decree for Jon Doe Injunction, restraining any person from sharing, disseminating, or publishing the defamatory video of the Plaintiff through any medium or platform; B. Pass a decree for Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 5 to remove the CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 4 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 defamatory video of Plaintiff from their social media platforms;
C. Pass a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts for illegal use of Plaintiff s image rights by the Defendants, D. Compensation for slander and defamation caused to the Plaintiff on account of acts and omissions of Defendants;
AND/OR E. Pass any other such order(s), relief(s) and/or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant:"
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 08.08.2025 allowed I.A. 15890/2025 and accordingly, the amended plaint was taken on record.
8. The plaintiff contends that on the new prayer clause for rendition of accounts in the amended plaint, the plaintiff has rightly valued the said relief for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10 crores and for the purposes of court fees at Rs. 200/-. To substantiate its plea that that the fixation of court fees at Rs. 200/- is legal, the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. v. Vimla Pannalal1. The plaintiff has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Sheila Devi and Others v. Kishan Lal Kalra and Others2, to contend that the Court fees fixed by the plaintiff cannot be interfered with by the Court.
9. This Court is not persuaded by the submissions of the plaintiff. At the hearing dated 29.05.2025, the learned counsel for the plaintiff categorically asserted that it is the relief of compensation for damages suffered due to alleged slander and defamation which was valued in the original plaint at Rs.
1(1988) 3 SCC 423 [Paragraph nos. 12 and 15] 2 1974 SCC OnLine Del 136 CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 5 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 10 crores. The Court had recorded the statement and adjudicated that the plaintiff is liable to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the said relief. Even when, the learned counsel for the plaintiff sought leave to amend the plaint the understanding was that plaintiff seeks to amend its relief for damages by reducing the claim and paying ad-valorem Court fees on the reduced claim for damages. However, in the amended plaint, the plaintiff has valued the relief of compensation for damages suffered due to alleged slander and defamation at Rs. 200/-. The drastic amendment in the claim of damages raises questions about the bona fide of the claim.
Nevertheless, this Court will now consider whether it is permissible in law for the plaintiff to value its relief of rendition of accounts for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10 crores as per Act of 1887 and value the said relief for purposes of the Court fees at Rs. 200 as per the Act of 1870.
10. This question is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. M/s Wockhardt Ltd.3.
The Division Bench after considering the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. v. Vimla Pannalal (supra) and the Full Bench judgment of Sheila Devi v. Kishan Lal Kalra (supra) categorically held that in a suit filed by the plaintiff for rendition of accounts, the plaintiff will be liable to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the valuation determined by the plaintiff for the relief of rendition of accounts for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Court. The relevant paragraph 40, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 52 and 53 read as under: -
"40. In our view, once the jurisdiction of this Court is resorted 3 2008 SCC OnLine Del 804 CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 6 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 to by the plaintiff by putting a jurisdictional value of at least 20 lakhs so as to litigate in this Court, then such a litigant must pay court fees upon such jurisdictional value ascertained by him.
...
43. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commercial Aviation (supra-6) case is as follows:
"23. We are also of the view that the plaintiff cannot whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for 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 or 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."
44. In our view, the objective standard contemplated by the above judgment of the Supreme Court is best illustrated by the plaintiffs own valuation for jurisdictional purposes. In fact, there can be no better objective standard than the plaintiffs own jurisdictional evaluation. We interpret the impact of the phrase "relief appearing on the face of the plaint' employed by the Supreme Court to mean that when the plaintiff has arrived at a basis of a figure for claiming damages, this furnishes not only an objective standard but also positive material in the form of averment of the plaintiff itself in the plaint to fix the valuation of the suit of the basis of the preliminary estimate of damages. ....
48. We fully endorse and adopt the view taken by the two learned Single Judges and with respect find ourselves unable to accept the reasoning of the Division Bench in Wockhardt v. Raj Medicos (supra-14) and Fenner India Ltd. v. Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra-10), which was followed in P.M. Diesels Ltd. v. Patel Field Marshal Industries (supra-12), as these three judgments had failed to notice the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Commercial Aviation (supra-6) and Abdul Hamid Shamsi (supra-5). In the normal course, if a Division Bench does not agree with another Division Bench the matter ought to be referred to a Larger Bench. However, since we have found the Division Bench in Fenner India (supra-10) case not to have noticed the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commercial Aviation (supra-6) and Abdul Hamid Shamsi (supra-5), we have laid down the law by following the above CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 7 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as summed up below:--
a. Section 7 clause (iv) of the Court Fees Act is an exception to all the clauses of Section 7 of the Act, as in all other clauses, the court fees has to be paid ad-valorem on the value of the relief sought. This departure from normal rule has been made deliberately for the simple reason that in case of suits under clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act it is not possible to give an exact money valuation. It is therefore undeniable that under the terms of this Section the plaintiff is to state the amount at which he values the relief sought by him when his case is within the ambit of the said clause. The reason behind this provision seems to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given option to value his claim, it is really difficult for the Court to value the claim with any precision or definiteness. In a suit for accounts, the correct amount which may be payable by one party to the other can be ascertained only when the accounts are examined and it is not possible to give an accurate valuation of the claim at the inception of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has been allowed to assess his own valuation.
b. Section 8 of the Act makes it clear that in a suit filed under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, the value as determinable for the computation of the court fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.
c. Section 9 of the Act empowers the High Court to make rules with the previous sanction of the State Government directing that suits of a particular class shall for the purpose of the Court Fees Act and any other enactment for the time being in force to be treated, as if their subject matter were of such value as the High Court thinks fit to specify in this behalf.
d. High Court can frame rules under Section 9 of the Act when it is of the opinion that the valuation as fixed under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act is such that it does not admit of being satisfactorily valued. This Section acts like a proviso to Section 8 of the Act.
e. Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act extended rules and orders framed by the Punjab High Court as applicable to CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 8 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 Delhi. Delhi High Court framed its own rules under Section 9 of the Act which are incorporated in Chapter III, Part C, Delhi High Court Rules, Practice and Procedure. Rule 4 as framed therein is applicable in suits for accounts of the nature before us. According to these rules, value for the purposes of court fees is as determined by the Court Fees Act, 1870 and value for the purposes of jurisdiction for the purposes of Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and the Punjab High Court Act, 1918, as valued by the plaintiff in the plaint subject to the determination by the Court at any stage of the trial.
f. In view of the Rule 4 as framed by the High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff is at liberty and is allowed to give his own tentative valuation for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. Generally, the Court cannot examine the correctness of the valuation as placed by the plaintiff but the Court is empowered at any stage of the case to reject under Order, 7 Rule 11(b) the valuation as fixed by the plaintiff, if it is of the view that plaintiff has valued the suit arbitrarily capriciously and has chosen to give a ridiculous figure which is not borne out from the record tantamounting to not exercising his discretion reasonably in this regard. The plaintiff has not been given absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on such relief and where he manifestly and deliberately undervalues and underestimates the same the Court is not silent and impotent spectator thereof and has clear jurisdiction to interfere. Any stage of the trial would certainly include even the time when the suit is first taken up for consideration by the court.
g. Before rejecting the valuation as fixed by the plaintiff the Court has to see if there is positive material or objective standard on the record to indicate that he has undervalued the suit but if there is no positive material or objective standard, the Court has to accept the plaintiffs valuation.
49. Keeping in mind the rationale as summed up above, now we have to see whether the plaintiff has valued the present suit for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction rationally and if the valuation as fixed by the plaintiff is arbitrary whimsical and is not borne out from any material on the record and he has undervalued the suit for purposes of court fees.
CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 9 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03
50. In para C of the prayer clause of the plaint, the plaintiff valued the relief of rendition of accounts for the purposes of jurisdiction for Rs. 20 lacs as the plaintiff estimated that such an amount would be founded due to the plaintiff on account of being rendered and plaintiff also undertook to pay the additional court fee as would be found due on determination of the actual amount after they are rendered and ascertained by the Court. It reads as follows:
"(c) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits, illegally earned by the Defendant, it is valued at Rs. 1000/- for purposes of court fee and the requisite amount of court fee of Rs. 150/- has been affixed. This relief is valued at Rs.
20,00,000/- for the purposes of jurisdiction as the Plaintiff estimates that such an amount shall be found due to the Plaintiff on accounts being rendered. The Plaintiff undertakes to pay such additional Court fee as would be found due when the actual amount is rendered and ascertained by this Hon'ble Court. The plaintiff is separately valuing the plaint for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction in terms of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported in 67 (1997) DLT 673, 1998 PTC 260 and in the unreported decision in RFA (OS) 62/98 dated 21.5.98."
...............
52. Therefore, under the circumstances, we find that respondent/plaintiff has arbitrarily and whimsically undervalued the suit for the purposes of court fees. Even otherwise if the suit is valued at Rs. 20 lakh and above for the purpose of jurisdiction then in our view court fees at least on such valuation has to be paid on the basis of such evaluation. An amount of Rs. 20 lacs is estimated to be founded due to it on accounts being rendered. In the present case, the plaintiff has fixed valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 20 lacs with the sole objective to confer jurisdiction on this Court as this court will have pecuniary jurisdiction only if the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is above Rs. 20 lacs, whereas in normal course, in view of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the pecuniary jurisdiction would lie with the District Judge. This is a peculiar circumstance which has arisen in Delhi as most of other High Courts in the country do not have original side jurisdiction CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 10 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 and such like suits are filed in the court of District Judge only. Another feature which we have noticed in that such disputes as to court fees are frequently raised in I.P.R. litigation mainly by corporations having turnover in crores and occupy valuable time of the court in this avoidable controversy on court fees. We are also of the view that once the Single Judge finds that whimsical and arbitrary averments to avoid paying requisite court fees have been made, henceforth deterrent costs may be imposed on such litigants.
53. The respondent/plaintiff, therefore, should have paid the ad-valorem court fees on the valuation of the suit at Rs. 20,00,800/. Under these circumstances, we have two options; either to reject the plaint for non-payment of requisite court fees under order, 7 Rule 11(b) of Code of Civil Procedure or to return it to the plaintiff for presentation in the competent court of jurisdiction. Since the dispute has now been settled and the respondent has paid the ad valorem court fees, we are not passing any consequential direction."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. The Division Bench referred to Section 8 of the Act of 1887 to conclude that for a suit filed under Section 7(iv) of the Act of 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of the Court fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. The relief for rendition of accounts admittedly falls under Section 7 (iv) of the Act of 1870.
12. In the aforesaid judgment before the Division Bench the facts of the plaint therein are set out at paragraph 50. The Division Bench held that the plaintiff therein would be liable to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the relief of rendition of accounts at the value affixed to the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction.
The facts set out therein are para-materia with paragraph 28 and 29 of the amended plaint. In view of the said judgment the plaintiff herein would be liable to pay ad-valorem Court fee on the valuation of Rs. 10 crores affixed by the plaintiff in the amended plaint for the relief of rendition of CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 11 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03 accounts.
13. In the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench at paragraph 48 (e) and
(f) has categorically held that the High Court has the jurisdiction to interfere with arbitrary valuations affixed in the plaint. Therefore, the submission of the plaintiff that the Court cannot interfere with its whimsical valuation for the relief of rendition for the purposes of Court fees is rejected.
14. It is settled law that in cases where relief of rendition of account is sought and the amount is not ascertainable; the plaintiff cannot be asked to provide a specific figure of the amount for which such relief has been sought. Thus, the plaintiff herein similarly could have elected to fix the value said relief for the purposes of jurisdiction at a nominal amount.
However, in the facts of this case the plaintiff has consciously fixed the amount at Rs. 10 crores [on a non-disclosed basis] as the value for the purposes of jurisdiction. The intent of fixing this amount is clearly intended to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court on the original side; because the plaintiff is aware that in case the valuation is below Rs. 2 crores the suit would lie before the District Court as per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC']. The mischief by a plaintiff, who while seeking relief of rendition of accounts values the relief for purposes of jurisdiction a high pecuniary value to file the suit on the original side but fails to pay Court fees thereon. has also been noted by the Division Bench in M/s Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) at paragraph
52. The Division Bench has held that this is not permissible and held that a plaintiff seeking relief of rendition of account would have to pay Court fees on the value affixed to the suit under Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887.
CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 12 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03
15. Section 15 of CPC provides the legislative mandate that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. To determine the jurisdiction of the Court, the valuation assigned by the plaintiff to its reliefs is the relevant criteria. If the action of the plaintiff in this suit is accepted that the valuation of relief of rendition of accounts is Rs 10 crores for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court but Rs. 200/- for the purposes of payment of Court fees, it shall result in negating the legislative intent of Section 15 CPC.
16. The plaintiff is granted four (4) weeks' time to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the relief of rendition of accounts valued at Rs. 10 crores, failing which the suit shall stand rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of CPC.
17. List on 15.01.2026.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2025/mt/MG/hp CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 13 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 22:10:03