2008 Supreme(Del) 748

157 (2009) DELHI LAW TIMES 65 (DB)
DELHI HIGH COURT
Mukul Mudgal & Aruna Suresh, JJ.
MAIDEN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
WOCKHARDT LTD. – Respondent
RFA (OS) No. 85 of 2007
Decided on : 11.7.2008

Headnote:

JUDGMENT Aruna Suresh, J.- M/s Wockhardt Ltd., the respondent in the present appeal, (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and was incorporated on 8.7.1999 under the name of Wockhardt Pharmaceuticals Limited. The name of the company was changed on 28.12.1999 to M/s Wockhardt Limited, the present plaintiff. Plaintiff company is the leading manufacturer of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations in India. Plaintiff is the owner of registered trademark SP ASMO-PROXYVON. Over the years, the plaintiff had been supplying the medicines continuously in India and have acquired the reputation of being extremely safe and reliable drug by virtue of adherence to strict quality standards maintained by the plaintiff. The defendant is selling its product under the trademark DEXOPHEN SPAS. Plaintiff has no objection to the user of the said trademark but to the get up of the packaging in respect of the blister pack of the defendant along with identical blue coloured capsules which according to the plaintiff is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, and is in violation of the rights of the plaintiff in its unregistered trademark to its blister packaging and is also infringing the copyright in its artistic work. Plaintiff sought following reliefs against the defendant: "(i) For an order for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, retailers, stockists, distributors, representatives and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned blister packaging mark annexed as Annexure- B to the plaint or any other packaging markl marks which are identical! colourable imitation of the Plaintiffs blister packaging mark annexed as Annexure-A to the plaint amounting to infringement of copyright. (ii) For an order for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, retailers, stockists, distributors, representatives and agents from manufacturing selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned packaging mark and blue coloured capsules annexed as Annexure B to the plaint or any other packaging mark andlor colour of capsules which are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs blister packaging mark and blue coloured capsules annexed as Annexure-A to the plaint amounting to passing off its business and goods as the business and goods of the plaintiff. (iii) That the defendant be directed to disclose on oath and by way of filing unimpeachable documentary evidence the details about the permission, if any, it has applied for and has obtained from the office of the concerned Drug Controller in regard to the manufacture and sale of its impugned pharmaceutical preparations as well as all documents concerning the production and sale of the same including the names and addresses of its stockists, dealers, representatives, agents, etc. along with the cost and quantity of the infringing products sold by the defendant to the said parties and the details of its various movable and immovable assets including its bank. (iv) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the Defendant by manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical preparations under its impugned deceptive blister packaging annexed as Annexure-B to the plaint and for a decree for the sum so ascertained. (v) For an order for delivery for purposes of destruction of all impugned wrappers, blister packs, blue coloured capsules, lables, dies and any other infringing copies or media used by the Defendant in pursuit of its illegal activities. (vi) For costs in the proceedings. (vii) For such further relief/reliefs to which the Plaintiff may be entitled looking into the facts and circumstances of the case."

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction as follows: (a) For an order of perpetual injunction at Rs. 200/ - for Court fees and jurisdiction and the requisite Court fees of Rs. 20/ - has been affixed. (b) For perpetual injunction restraining passing off, suit is valued at Rs. 200/- for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction and the requisite Court fees of Rs. 20/- has been affixed. (c) For relief of rendition of accounts, illegally earned by the defendant, the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 1000/- for purposes of Court fees and paid requisite amount ot Rs. 150/- and for purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 20 lacs as the plaintiff estimated that such an amount would be founded due to the plaintiff on accounts being rendered and plaintiff undertook to pay such additional Court fee as would be found due when the actual amount is rendered and ascertained by the Court. (d) For an order for delivery, for purposes of destruction of wrappers and labels, etc. the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 200/- for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and paid requisite Court of fees Rs. 20/-. (e) For an order directing the defendant to disclose on oath all documents pertaining to the permission to manufacture and/ or sell its impugned pharmaceutical preparations along with the details of its stockists/dealers/ agents/ distributors/ retailers etc. plaintiff assessed the valuation for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/ - and paid requisite Court fee of Rs. 20/-.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the plaintiff had undervalued the suit for purposes of Court fees and that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction was arbitrary and whimsical. The Court also found that the plaintiff had not provided any objective standard or positive material to support its valuation of the suit.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff had undervalued the suit for purposes of Court fees. Whether the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction was arbitrary and whimsical. Whether the plaintiff had provided any objective standard or positive material to support its valuation of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiff had undervalued the suit for purposes of Court fees and that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction was arbitrary and whimsical. The Court also held that the plaintiff had not provided any objective standard or positive material to support its valuation of the suit. The Court relied on the following principles of law: * Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act allows the plaintiff to value the suit for purposes of Court fees in certain cases. * Section 8 of the Act provides that the value of the suit for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction shall be the same. * Section 9 of the Act empowers the High Court to frame rules for the valuation of suits in certain cases. * The High Court of Delhi has framed rules under Section 9 of the Act, which allow the plaintiff to value the suit for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction separately. * The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily or whimsically value the suit. The valuation must be based on objective standards or positive material.

Final Decision: The Court directed the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem Court fees on the valuation of the suit at Rs. 20,00,800/-.