Mr. Vijender Jain, J.

( 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 :-

" (I) for a decre for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, this relief is valued for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction atrs. 200. 00 and Court fees of Rs. 20. 00 is affixed thereon; (ii) for a decree for permanent injunction restraining passing off, this reliefis valued for puposes of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 200. 00 andcourt fees of Rs. 20. 00is affixed thereon; (iii) for a decree for delivery of infringing goods, this relief is valued forpurposes of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 200. 00and Court fees of Rs. 20. 00 is affixed thereon; (iv) for an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendants, this relief is valued for purposes of Court fees at Rs. 200. 00 andcourt fees of Rs. 20. 00is affixed theredon;this relief is valued for purpose of jurisdiction under the provisions of Order7 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 7 of Court-fees Act, 1870 and Section 9 of the Suitvaluation Act, 1887 alongwith Rules 3 and 4 of the Punjab and Haryana High Courtrules at Rs. 5,50,000. 00 as the said amount could be found due on rendition ofaccounts of profits by the defendants. The plaintiff undertakes to pay suchadditional Court fees as may be directed by this Court on the ascertainment of theamount so found due. Thus the suit is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction atrs. 5,50,000. 00and forthe purpose of court fees at Rs. 800. 00 and Court fees of Rs. 80. 00 is affixed thereon. At the end of paragraph 14 of the plaint the plaintiff has averred that the reliefis valued for purposes of jurisdiction under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 2 CPCread with Sec. 7 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 and Sec. 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887along with Rules 3 and 4 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules at Rs. 5. 50,000. 00 as the said amount could be found due on rendition of accounts of profitsby the defendants. It has been further averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiffundertakes to pay such Additional Court-fees as may be directed by this Court onthe ascertainment of the amount so found due. On the basis of this aforesaidvaluation as contained in paragraph 14 of the plaint the plaintiff has valued the suitfor purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 5,50,000. 00 and for purposes of Court fees at Rs. 800. 00 and Court fees of Rs. 80. 00 has been paid on the plaint.

( 2 ). Mr. Aggarwal learned Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that in view ofthe amendment in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and in view of Rules 3and 4 of the said a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document