IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Sandip Kumar Roy Choudary & Mr. Harsh V. Agarwala - Appellant
Versus
Indian Plumbing Association Through Its President Mr. Gurmit Singh Arora - Respondent
CS(OS) 58 of 2021
Decided On : 10-10-2022
CPC - Suit Valuation - Section 15, Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1970 - The court discussed the principles for proper suit valuation and payment of Court Fee, emphasizing that the nature of relief determines the court fee payable. It highlighted the discretion of the plaintiff to value the suit according to its own estimation, unless it is found to be fixed arbitrarily and with malafide intention such as 'Forum Shopping'. The court dismissed the application for return of the plaint, as it found no malafide in the fixation of the suit value on which ad valorem Court Fee has been paid.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed an application for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation, alleging that the plaintiff had grossly overvalued the suit to bring it within the jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff argued that it had the discretion to value the suit according to its own estimation, and the application was without merit.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the principles for proper suit valuation and payment of Court Fee. It found no malafide in the fixation of the suit value on which ad valorem Court Fee has been paid.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's valuation of the suit was arbitrary and with malafide intention, and whether the application for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation had merit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of relief determines the court fee payable, and the plaintiff has the discretion to value the suit according to its own estimation, unless it is found to be fixed arbitrarily and with malafide intention such as 'Forum Shopping'.
Final Decision: The application for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. -
I.A. 4632/2021
1. An application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed on behalf of the defendant for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation.
2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration for declaring the Resolution no. 4 passed in the National Executive Committee (NEC) Special Meeting no. IPA/NEC Spl. Mtg./02 held on 11.12.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and also for injunction for restraining the defendant Company from giving it effect and operation.
3. The defendant Association has filed a Written Statement. The defendant has asserted in the application that in terms of the Section 15 of CPC, every suit instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The plaintiffs have grossly overvalued the present suit which has no nexus with the cause of action and is an abuse of process of law. The plaintiffs have dishonestly and intentionally inflated the value of the suit with an object to bring within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Arbitrary and whimsical value of ?2,00,01,000/- has been fixed without disclosing any basis. The application is therefore liable to be return under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on.
5. The plaintiff in its reply to the application has asserted that in a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, it is the discretion of the plaintiff to value its suit according to its own estimation and such valuation is normally accepted. It is only in the cases where it is manifestly and deliberately under-estimated that the Court may examine the correctness of the valuation as affixed by the plaintiff.
6. It is submitted that Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') clearly states that in a suit for a declaratory decree and consequential relief and injunction, the plaintiff shall state the amount at which each relief is being valued. The plaintiff has rightly valued its suit and there is no allegation of undervaluation. It is claimed that the application is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Plaintiff has placed reliance on Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245, and Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar v. Venkatchalam Chettiar (1980) 1 SCC 616.
8. Submissions heard.
9. Section 15 of the CPC provides for the Courts in which the suit may be instituted. It reads as under:
'Section 15 - Courts in which suits to be instituted - Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it."
10. Competence means having jurisdiction to try. The jurisdiction has reference to (a) subject matter (b) pecuniary valuation and (c) territorial jurisdiction. This Section is a rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction and it does not therefore, oust the jurisdiction of the Court of higher grade who have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. When a suit triable by a Court of a lower grade, is instituted in a Court of higher grade, the later Court may return the plaint. It is only discretionary on the part of the later Court. Section 15 of CPC is enacted not merely to avoid overcrowding but also for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses who may be examined by them. Where the relief claimed is of injunction which it is incapable of valuation, the plaintiff may put a notional value and the same should not be questioned by the Court on the ground that the valuation so affixed is to avoid payment of higher amount (P. Rama Rao v. Srikakulam Municipality AIR 1993 AP 255).
11. Section 7(iv)(d) of the Act provides for computation of fee payable in certain suits. Section 7 of the Act provides for computation of fees payable in certain suits. Section 7(iv)(d) reads as under:
'7(iv) In suits ... For an injunction-- (d) to obtain an injunction - according to the amount at which the relie
Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid (1988) 2 SCC 575
Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. v. Vimla Pannalal (1988) 3 SCC 423
Mahesh Gupta v. Ranjit Singh & Ors. (2009) 159 DLT 624 (DB)
Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar v. Venkatchalam Chettiar (1980) 1 SCC 616
P. Rama Rao v. Srikakulam Municipality AIR 1993 AP 255
Padmavati Mahajan v. Yogender Mahajan and Anr. (2008) 152 DLT 363
Parbha v. Suraj Bhan & Ors. AIR 1935 All. 157
Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245
Shakuntala Rani v. Rajesh Bhatt (Deceased) through Lrs. 80 (1999) DLT 98 (DB)
The nature of relief determines the court fee payable, and the plaintiff has the discretion to value the suit according to its own estimation, unless it is found to be fixed arbitrarily and with mala....
Valuation of suit – It is nature of relief claimed in plaint which is decisive of question of suit valuation – Market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable prop....
Valuation of suits for declaration with consequential relief must relate to market value and should not be arbitrary, following Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
The appellant has the right to decide the value of the suit, but the court fee must be paid on the same amount as the valuation for jurisdiction. If the trial court finds a deficit in court fee, it s....
The valuation of IPR suits should not be presumed to be undervalued, and the issue of undervaluation should be evaluated based on the facts of each case.
Trial courts must adjudicate proper valuation and allow time for fee remittance rather than dismissing suits prematurely.
(1) Suits valuation – Issue of a deliberate suppression of valuation would have to be considered and answered based on facts obtaining in an individual case.(2) IPR Suit – Unless twin conditions of c....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the valuation of a suit property in a suit for recovery of possession from a trespasser should be based on the relief sought in the plaint....
For a suit to be considered a commercial dispute, it should meet both the requirements of falling within the definition of a commercial dispute and having a specified value of more than Rs. 3 lakhs. ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.