Vijender Jain, J. (Oral)

( 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 and ors v. Shri Kishan Lal Knira and 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.

( 4 ) BUT the case before me is of a different nature. Before me there is a plaint which has been filed by the plaintiff which is a Company existing under the. law of State of New Jersey, United State of America. It has also been averred that plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller of wide range of goods including photographic material, chemicals, cameras, video tapes etc. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade mark KODAK registered in its name in several classes. In para-3, the plaintiff has given description of the goods in relation to its trade mark KODAK, registered in its name. In para-4 it has been mentioned as to how many additional trade marks registration plaintiff has got in India. In para-8 the plaintiff has given the sales figure of the goods sold under the trade mark KODAK with K Device in India in the last 10 years. Mr. Singh says that sale in 1985 in India may be approximately 13 crores and in 1993 it may be approximately 108 crores. To my mind the figure of sales as described in para-8 for the year 1993 is 10876,07,000 and on the top of it plaintiff has given "value in thousands" would come to approximately 1000 crores of rupees. With that kind of high volume of sales, the plaintiff has filed its suit against the defendants for various reliefs for injunction and rendition of account. For the purposes of understanding the true scope of the prayer, it is relevant to reproduce Clauses (iii) and (iv) of the plaint, which are as follows I -

"clause (iii) A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs, directing the Defendants to render an account of profits earned from the use of the trade mark KODAK, upon or in relation to its goods and business. Claus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document