AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC LIMITED Vs. R K DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset this Court took the objection that properan adequate Court fees has not been paid and the plaint is deficient. This is a suit forpermanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off, rendition of accounts ofprofits etc. The plaintiff claims to be a Company registered under the CompaniesAct. According to the case of the plaintiff in 1945the plaintiff adopted the trade mark'DIMMERSTAT' in relation to their goods. Plaintiff has incurred substantialexpenses in sales promotion and advertising compaign pertaining to the goodsbearing the trade mark 'DIMMERSTAT' and therefore it has been averred that thetrademark of the plaintiff has earned reputation and good will. In paragraph 3of the plaint the plaintiff has given the turnover of sales of its product which in 1983-84 was approximately Rs. 10.49 crores and in 1993-94 Rs.31 crores. The suit has beenfiled by the plaintiff and it has been averred that defendants 1 and 2 are also engagedin the business of manufacturing and selling same kind of goods as has beenmanufactured and sold by the plaintiff. It has been averred that the defendants areusings the trade mark 'DIMMER DOT' which is deceptively similar with the trademark of the plaintiff. A legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 7/4/1994 to stop thewrongful user of the trade mark. On the basis of these averments plaintiff has valuedthe suit for Court fees and jurisdiction in the following manner :-

(2.) . Mr. Aggarwal learned Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that in view ofthe amendment in the Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules and in view of Rules 3and 4 of the said amendment the plaintiff has got the right to fix any value for suitsfor rendition of accounts. The plaintiff valued this suit for purposes of jurisdictionat a figure which brought the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Forthe purpose of present controversy Rule 4 is relevant which is as follows :-

(3.) . Mr. Aggarwal has further contended that this Rule itself provides that if atany stage of trial the Court is of the opinion from material on record or evidenceproduced that the suit is under valued the Court can order for making up thedeficiency in Court fees but at the time of institution of the suit the law enjoinsplaintiff the right to fix its own valuation for purposes of rendition of accounts whichin this case he has valued at Rs. 200.00 and the valuation for purposes of jurisdictionat Rs. 5,50,000.00 which he is entitled to do in law. He has also invited the attentionof this Court to a decision M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Co. (Inc.) and Others v. Vimal Pannalal, AIR 1986 Delhi 439 and on the basis of said authority Mr.Aggarwal has argued that the plaintiff could put his estimated value for purposesof jurisdiction and the grievance that the value for jurisdiction is higher would makeno practical difference since the value for purpose of Court-fees could be differentin view of the Rules being framed under Sec. 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and evenif the value is fixed for jurisdiction at a higher figure jurisdiction will remain in thisCourt. In M/s. Commercial Aviation & Travel Co.(supra), the Court laid downthat-