Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (10) TMI 577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... USA and claims to have global research based pharmaceutical company with worldwide performance which has been acclaim d. The worldwide sales figures are stated to be existing for nearly almost one thousand million dollars for trade mark Viagra, and, similarly for other trade marks, the worldwide sales of the plaintiff-company are running into billions of dollars. The common question which arises in all these suits is on account of the valuation done by the plaintiff for court fee and jurisdiction purposes. Relevant para 42 is as under: G G The value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is as follows: a) For an order of permanent injunction each injunction is valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unt? The submission for the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that it is open to the plaintiff to make out valuations for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and the plaintiff has valued the suit for purposes of fee on ₹ 5,00,050 while valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at ₹ 50.00,050/- It is thus submitted that since for purposes of jurisdiction the suit is valued at over rupees fifty lakhs, this court would have pecuniary jurisdiction to try and determine the present suit and the proper court fee has been affixed for purposes of valuation for court fees. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendants is that suit is not properly valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and that the pl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relief sought in the plaint or memorandum of appeal to the plaintiff. The Legislature has also not laid down any standards for valuation in the Court Fees Act and u/s 9 of the Suits Valuation Act. The Supreme Court may frame rules for valuation of suits referred to in section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. The rules of the Punjab High Court as applicable to Delhi do not lay down any standards of valuation in such cases. It is thus open that in such cases the court has no other alternative than to accept the plaintiff's valuation tentatively. However, at the same time it has been emphasised that the valuation cannot be arbitrary and where there are objections, standards of valuation, the court can reasonably value the reliefs correctly on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pointed out and referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid AIR 1988 SC 1150 which is to the same effect directing that though the plaintiff is allowed to give his tentative valuation and ordinarily the court is not to examine the correctness of the valuation chosen, the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this matter. Learned counsel for defendants has laid emphasis on two judgments of the same Learned Judge of this court where these very judgments of the Apex Court have been considered. These two cases are of suit no. 1584/1994, Eastman Kodak Company v. M/s M.R.Electronics and others; decided on 01.08.1994 and Suit no. 0412/1994, Automatic Electric Limited v. R K Dhawan and Anr. decided on 17.10.1994. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e plaintiff, it can hardly be stated that the amount which would be found due on rendition of accounts can be said a meagre amount as alleged of ₹ 5,00,050 for purposes of court fees. The most material fact is that for purposes of suit valuation, the plaintiff in para 42 himself has stated that it is expected that at the time of rendition of accounts the plaintiff shall be entitled to an amount in excess of ₹ 50,00,000/-. This is not only a hope but is based on the turn over of the plaintiff running into thousands of crores. Thus finding in para 24 of the judgment in M/s Commerical Aviation and Travel v. Vimla Pannalal case (Supra) would of little assistance to the plaintiff. I am of the considered view that the valuation for pu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates