IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 commercial dispute and specified value are satisfied, suit cannot be tried by a commercial court.

JUDGMENT

FAO (COMM) 98 of 2023 and CM Appl. 20261 of 2023 (Stay), CM Appl. 20262 of 2023 (Addl. Document)

The present appeal impugns the order dated 21 February 2023 passed by the District Judge (Commercial) who has for reasons assigned and recorded in that order, vacated the ex parte injunction which had been granted in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant on 25 September 2021 and called upon it to furnish additional material in support of the Chartered Accountant’s [“CA”] certificate which had been presented in respect of the “specified value” of the suit.

2. We find from the order dated 25 April 2023 passed on this appeal that the Court while entertaining the challenge had placed the impugned order in abeyance and restored the ad interim ex parte injunction which had operated on the suit. While considering the questions which were canvassed for consideration, the Division Bench also expressed reservation with respect to the correctness of the view expressed by a learned Single Judge of the Court in Vishal Pipes Limited vs. Bhavya Pipe Industry, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1730. It accordingly appointed Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned counsel, as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in examining the questions which arose.

3. The doubts which were expressed by the Court with respect to the judgment in Vishal Pipes essentially appear to have arisen in light of the following facts. The proceedings in Vishal Pipes emanated from a suit for injunction which had been instituted alleging infringement of a registered trademark and copyright. The plaintiff had valued the suit at below Rs. 3 lakhs as a result of which it came to be placed before a District Judge who was not designated as a commercial court. The learned Single Judge found that in light of the suit having been valued at below Rs. 3 lakhs, notwithstanding the same raising issues of infringement of trademarks and copyright, it was liable to be tried as a regular civil suit and thus not be regulated by the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA). It was in the aforesaid backdrop that the learned Single Judge in Vishal Pipes formulated the question which arose to be whether IPR suits valued below Rs. 3 lakhs ought to be listed before District Judges manning commercial courts and thus be tried in accordance with the provisions of the CCA or by District Judges (Non-Commercial) as ordinary suits. The learned Single Judge noted that unscrupulous plaintiffs appeared to be deliberately undervaluing IPR suits leading to a situation where they were not only choosing the court before which those matters would be listed but also avoiding the proceedings being governed by the provisions of the CCA. On an analysis of the provisions of the CCA, the Court Fee Act, 1870 (Court Fees Act) and decisions rendered by this Court as well as other High Courts, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold as under:—

“62. To answer the above, first, the discussion in paragraph 25 above is pertinent, as it clearly shows that IPR disputes are a set of disputes which lie only before the District Court. Thus, in that sense, such disputes are an exception to the rule of institution of cases at the Court of the lowest level having jurisdiction. With the enactment of the CCA, the subject-matter jurisdiction over IPR disputes now vests with the Commercial Courts, at the District Court Level. Therefore, can litigants and lawyers escape the rigors of the provisions of the CCA by valuing the suits below Rs. 3 lakhs? The answer ought to be a clear “No”. This is due to the following reasons:—

(i) The application of the judicial principles that the plaintiff is dominus litis and is free to value the suit in the manner it so chooses, has to be in the context of enactment of the CCA. The principles cannot be stretched to justify undervaluation of IPR disputes and payment of lower Court fee.

(ii) Not ascribing a “specified value” in the suit would be contrary to the scheme of the CCA which requires every suit to ha