Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, 'Eastman Kodak Company', against the defendants for permanent injunction and for rendition of account. The plaintiff has prayed for obtaining a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants from using the trade mark 'KODAK' or any other trade mark deceptively similar thereto. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree against the defendants to render the account of profits earned from the use of the trade mark KODAK upon or in relation to its goods and business. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction for a decree of permanent injunction at Rs. 200/-each and on which the court-fee of Rs. 20/-cach has been paid. For prayers (iii) and (v) for rendition of accounts and payment to the plaintiff for the purposes of jurisdiction are together valued at Rs. 5,05,000/- and it is stated that the plaintiff estimates that a sum in excess of that amount will be found due from the defendants. However, for the purposes of the court-fee prayers (iii) and (v) are valued at Rs. 5,000/- each whereon the court-fee of Rs. 638/- each has been paid. The Court at the outset feels that the plaintiff has hopelessly and arbitrarily undervalued the court-fee in view of the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint.

7. No doubt, it is true that the valuation fixed by the plaintiff for relief of rendition of account would be valuation for the purposes of the suit and court-fee has to be paid on that valuation. But in a case before me where the sales of the plaintiff is in several hundred corers of rupees and in sub-para (b) of para 23 it has also been categorically stated by the plaintiff that a sum in excess of Rs. 5,05,000/- may be found due from the defendant whether the valuation fixed by the plaintiff is not arbitrary, unjust and whether the plaint has not undervalued the relief. Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act is as follows:-

"For accounts according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.
In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought."

8. The intention of the legislature in enacting this provision was not to burden the plaintiff with court-fee to be paid on an amount which is unspecified and unascertained. As it would be only fair to have court-fee paid by the plaintiff on amount which the plaintiff feels in his bona fide and reasonable belief to be the amount at which he assesses the value of the relief so that he can ultimately pay the amount of actual court-fee after rendition of account when a decree in terms thereof is passed. But it does not give the plaintiff a right to undervalue the relief, put up an arbitrary or ridiculously low amount in order to escape the payment of court-fee at the time of institution of the suit.

"Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation "within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so."

11. The provisions of sub-rule (b) of Rule 11 of Order 7, of CPC also deals with cases where the plaintiff undervalues the releif. I am of the opinion that it is a case where the plaintiff has undervalued the relief. 1 am also supported in my view by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid the Supreme Court held (ay p 1152 of AIR) :--