T. RAJANI, J.

1. The order that is impugned by the petitioners is passed by the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.104 of 2017 in C.O.S.No.36 of 2016 dated 10.07.2017 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking the court to reject the plaint, on the ground that the values specified in the Commercial Court Act were not complied with.

2. The averments in the petition run as follows:

The Director of the first petitioner company has gone through the plaint filed in O.S.No.36 of 2016. The Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the Court is constituted under Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’), to decide commercial disputes of specified value, which shall not be less than one crore rupees or such a higher value as may be notified by the Central Government. A reading of Section 2(i) of the Act makes it crystal clear that the plaintiff filed the suit, claiming that their intangible rights to the trademarks have accrued to them by virtue of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 16.03.2013, entered between the parties. The plaintiff estimated the value of the intangible rights to the trademarks and sought for:

(1) Declaration, that there is no infringement and/or passing off action by the plaintiff at Rs.1,00,000/-

(2) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from threatening infringement and/or passing off action by the plaintiff, at Rs.1,00,000/-

(3) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from making and executing further assignment of the brand names mentioned therein, at Rs.1,00,000/-

(4) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing and selling the brands mentioned therein, at Rs.1,00,000/- and

(5) Damages, at Rs.10,00,000/-.

On the estimated value of intangible rights to the trademarks, at Rs.14,00,000/-, the plaintiff paid the total court fee of Rs.26,130/-. Since the specified value of the subject matter of the suit as estimated by the plaintiff is less than one crore rupees, the suit is barred by the provisions of the Act and hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

The respondent filed counter, contending that the suit is filed in a proper Court, having proper jurisdiction and that the market value of the trademarks as mentioned in the MOU entered into between the parties is Rs.1,90,00,000/- and hence, the plaintiff has the jurisdiction to file the suit before the said Court. With regard to para 6 of the petition, the reliefs sought for in the present suit, it is for the Court to declare that the usage of the trademarks by the respondent/plaintiff by virtue of MOU entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, does not constitute infringement and hence, the respondent has rightly invoked the legal remedy and approached the Court to declare that there is no infringement. The respondent also filed a suit for specific performance, which is pending adjudication and hence, though the relief sought by the respondent amounts to Rs.14,00,000/- only, the statement of market value of the intangible property, as mentioned in the Act, has to be taken into consideration, which is above one crore and also since the subject matter is identified as commercial dispute under Section 2(c)(xvii) under the Act, the respondent has filed the suit before the proper Court.

The Court below, by considering the rival contentions, held that the claim made by plaintiff in the suit comes under the definition of Section 12(1)(d) of the Act and hence, the petitioner has failed to prove that the suit file by the plaintiff does not come under the Act.

3. Impugning the said order, this revision is preferred on the following grounds:

The Court below failed to see that the specified value, in relation to a commercial dispute shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined