In commercial disputes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the specified value for jurisdiction must be determined under Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which takes precedence over the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958.

ORDER

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.

In a suit for injunction, alleging passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, can the 'specified value' of the subject matter of the suit, be determined applying Section 50 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 is the question that needs to be answered in this petition.

2. Respondent in this appeal filed the suit for an injunction in respect of movable, immovable as well as intangible properties. In the said suit filed before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru, defendant No.3 filed a memo to reject the plaint on the premise that the value of the properties exceeds Rs. 3 lakhs, as such, only the designated Commercial Court can try the suit and the suit is not maintainable before the City Civil Court.

3. The Court dismissed the memo vide order dated 03.09.2022. CRP No.545/2022 was filed challenging the said order, this Court vide order dated 13.12.2022 directed the plaintiff to estimate the "specified value" as per Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short 'Act of 2015').

4. After the disposal of CRP No.545/2022, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.13 valuing only the relief sought over the intangible property at Rs.2,50,000/-without valuing movable and immovable properties. Defendants No.2 to 4 opposed the application and insisted on valuing the movable and immovable properties. The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's valuation. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 27.02.2023, defendant No.2 is before this Court.

5. Learned Senior counsel Sri. Ashok Harnahalli and Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the petitioner would contend that the suit is filed for an injunction in respect of the movable, immovable as well as intangible properties. Under Section 12 of the Act of 2015, the plaintiff must provide the market value of all the properties described in the plaint; in CRP No.545/2022, this Court has directed the plaintiff to provide the 'specified value' of the properties as per Section 12(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Act of 2015. Since the valuation of movable and immovable properties which exceed Rs. 3 lakhs is not provided, as ordered, the plaint is to be rejected.

6. Learned Senior counsel Sri. K.N. Phanindra appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and the plaintiff is entitled to 'value the relief' and need not value the property as the relief claimed is injunction simpliciter. Elaborating on the point, it is urged that Section 50 r/w Section 26(c) of the Act of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958 ('Act of 1958' for short) would apply, as such the valuation for jurisdiction and the Court fee would be the same and there cannot be two different valuations.

7. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that the subjects mentioned in Entry No.11A in List-III of VII Schedule of the Constitution of India confers the power on the Parliament as well as the State Legislature to pass laws relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. In terms of the Act of 1958, the State Legislature has passed the laws relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. If there is inconsistency in the methodology adopted to determine the jurisdiction of the Court under the Act of 2015 and Act of 1958, as the Act of 1958 has received the President's assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the same will prevail over the Act of 2015 to the extent of repugnancy. Thus, the suit valuation has to be under the provisions of the Act of 1958. The plaintiff need not provide a valuation of the property under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Act of 2015 as those provisions are repugnant to the provisions of the Act of 1958 governing the valuation for jurisdictional purpose. Thus, the plaintiff is required to furnish the valuation of the relief as provided under Section 12 (d) of the Act of 2015.

8. Learned Senior counsel in support of his submission, has relied on the following judgments:

(i) Mrs. Soni Dave v. M/s Trans Asian