EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY Vs. M R ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(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 rnark 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.200.00 each and on which the court fee of Rs.20.00 each 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.5,05,000.00 and it is stated that the plaintiff estimates that a sum in excess of that amount will befound due from the defendants. However, for the purposes of the court fee prayer (iii) and (v) are valued at Rs.5,000.00 each whereon the court fee of Rs.638.00 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.

(2.) Mr. D.D. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has argued that for the purposes of fixing the court fee on the relief orrendition of account, it is the valuation given by the plaintiff which has to be taken by the Court as correct and Court cannot impose its own valuation to that of plaintiff. Mr.Singh has also cited before me ILR Del (2) 1974491 a Full Bench decision of this Court in support of his contentions.

(3.) There cannot be any doubt with regard to the proposition of law as laid down in Snit-Sheila Devi & ors v. Shri Kishan Lal Knira & ors. ILR Delhi (2) 1974 497 that para-4 of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act gives a right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the clauses of that paragraph to place any valuation that he likes on the relief he seeks, subject, however, to any rules made under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation.