- 1 - CRP No.545 of 2022 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE13H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.545 OF2022BETWEEN: MR.GANGADHARAPPA MUNINDRA KUMAR @ KUMAR G.M, S/O. GANGADARAPPA MUNINDRA, AGED ABOUT47YEARS, EX. DIRECTOR OF M/S. EAGLESIGHT TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, (DEFENDANT NO.1 COMPANY), No.68, 1ST STATE, 5TH PHASE, MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. KASHINATH J D, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S. EAGLESIGHT MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (ESMPL) CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR, MR. ASHWIN MAHENDRA, DULY REP. BY HIS AUTHORIZED PERSON, MR. MAHENDRA. B (FATHER OF ASHWIN MAHENDRA), VIDE LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION DATED2401/2022, AGED ABOUT62YEARS, RESIDING AT No.301/10, 36TH CROSS, 7TH 'C' MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGARA4H BLOCK, - 2 - CRP No.545 of 2022 BENGALURU-560 011.
2. M/S. EAGLESIGHT TELE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED DULY REP. BY ITS DIRECTORS, 1(A) KRISHNAPPA BABU1B) NARAYAN RAVI KUMAR No.68, 1ST STAGE, 5TH PHASE, MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.
3. M/S. BTV KANNADA PRIVATE LIMITED DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS IN TERM OF AUTHORIZATION UNDER BOARD RESOLUTION, 1(a) SEEMANAZ, 1(b) KRISHNAPPA BABU, No.38, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 010, PRESENT OFFICE AT No.32/1-2, CRESCENT TOWER, CRESCENT ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. MRS. MALLEGOWDANAHALLI KRISHNA MANJULA @ MANJULA M. K. W/O. MR. KUMAR. G. M., AGED MAJOR, EX. DIRECTOR OF M/S. EAGLESIGHT TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, (DEFENDANT NO.1 COMPANY), No.68, 1ST STAGE, 5TH PHASE, MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N. PHANEENDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. DEEPAK B R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER
DATED1312.2022, NOTICE TO R2 & R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - CRP No.545 of 2022 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION115OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED1304.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN OS.NO.584/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED UNDER ORDER
1RULE102) R/W SECTION151OF CPC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
1 Aggrieved by the orders passed on memo filed by defendant No.3 in O.S.No.584/2022 dated 03.09.2022 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City, defendant No.3 therein has preferred this petition.
2. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff before the trial Court. It has filed O.S.No.584/2022 with the following prayers: (a) PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING the Defendants, its agents, employees, representatives, henchmen or anybody claiming through or under it from misusing and misrepresenting the Logo, contents, channel name, visuals, documents, Office Premises, Studio premises, technical equipments, same employees and all other assets belonging to the Plaintiff Company and - 4 - CRP No.545 of 2022 (b) also restrain the Defendants not to enter into contracts or agreement with Media Partners and channel Partners of the Plaintiff company by misusing the name of the Plaintiff Company, (c) such other orders/reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Cost/s of the Suit.
3. The suit pertains to intellectual property. However, as the prayer pertains to injunction, the suit has been valued at one thousand rupees as per Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, under Court Fee of Rs.25/- is paid on the plaint.
4. Defendant No.3/petitioner herein filed a memo before the trial Court contending that as per provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. The trial Court upon hearing the parties has passed the impugned order by which the memo filed by defendant No.3/petitioner regarding the maintainability of the suit was - 5 - CRP No.545 of 2022 rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by defendant No.3 therein.
6. The case of the petitioner is that the suit pertains to injunction relating to an intellectual property and the value of the said right is more than three lakh rupees and plaintiff/respondent No.1 was required to file the original suit before the Commercial Court and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and it ought to have dismissed the same pursuant to the memo filed by the petitioner herein and it erred in not doing so.
7. Per contra, respondent No.1 submits that what has been prayed in the suit is only an injunction and as per provisions of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958, it is valued at one thousand rupees and Court Fee of Rs.25/- is paid on the same and as valuation is less than three lakh rupees, the trial Court gets its jurisdiction to try the case and that there is no error in the impugned order and it prays for dismissal of the petition.-. 6 - CRP No.545 of 2022 8. Section 2(c)(xvii) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for brevity) reads as under: (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (c) "Commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of- (xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits; Section 6 of the Act reads as under:
6. Jurisdiction of Commercial Court.- The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act reads as under:
2. Definitions. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (i) "Specified Value", in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12 (which shall not be less than three lakh rupees) or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government. Section 12(1)(d) reads as under:- - 7 - CRP No.545 of 2022 12. Determination of Specified Value.(1) The specified Value of the subject-matter of the commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application shall be determined in the following manner:- (d) Where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to any other intangible right, the market value of the said rights as estimated by the plaintiff shall be taken into account for determining Specified Value; 9. The subject matter of the suit being one related to intellectual property qualifies as a commercial dispute as per Section 2(c)(xvii) of the Act. The question that arises for consideration is does it satisfies the Specified Value as per the Act for Commercial Courts to get the jurisdiction or not and if yes then is the trial Court required to dismiss the suit as contended by petitioner/defendant No.3.
10. Reading of the provisions of the Act shows that for the Commercial Court to have jurisdiction to try a matter, firstly, the lis should be a commercial dispute and the Specified Value should be more than three lakh rupees, if not the regular Courts shall have the jurisdiction to try the case.-. 8 - CRP No.545 of 2022 11. Further, what is contemplated in the Act, is determination of Specified Value to determine the jurisdiction of Commercial Court and not the value of the suit as contemplated under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. In other words, the Specified Value is for determining the jurisdiction of the Court and not for payment of Court Fee. The payment of Court Fee will have to be done in accordance with provisions of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
12. As per Section 2(i) of the Act, the Specified Value in relation to commercial dispute shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12 of the Act and if that value is more than three lakh rupees, the Commercial Courts will have jurisdiction. How Specified Value has to be determined in respect of intellectual property has been answered in Section 12(1)(d) of the Act and according to it, when the relief sought in the suit relates to an intangible right, the market value of the said rights as estimated by the plaintiff shall be taken into account for determining the Specified Value. Thus, irrespective of the nature of the prayer, whether be it for a declaration or recovery - 9 - CRP No.545 of 2022 of money or bare injunction or any other prayer the specified value depends upon the market value of the intangible right as estimated by the plaintiff and the jurisdiction of the Court is determined accordingly. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer sought pertains to a intangible right and it is a suit for bare injunction and the suit is valued at one thousand rupees for the purpose of paying the Court Fee in accordance with Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. However, for the purpose of jurisdiction, the Specified Value as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act is not mentioned in the plaint and the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the Specified Value of the intangible right sought to be enforced by the plaintiff, which is to be determined by the plaintiff. The Specified Value is to be determined based upon the market value of the right and not the nature of the prayer made.
13. The trial Court has erred in not appreciating the aforementioned fact and has passed the impugned order by holding that valuation as per the provisions of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is less than three lakh - 10 - CRP No.545 of 2022 rupees and thus the jurisdiction to try the same, which is erroneous.
14. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the suit is liable to be rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to mention the Specified Value in the plaint?.
15. The Specified Value of the plaint has to be mentioned only to show the jurisdiction in which Court the suit should be filed. No where in any statute it is mentioned that if Specified Value as contemplated under Commercial Courts Act is not mentioned in the plaint, the same is liable to be rejected or suit is liable to be dismissed. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the suit has been filed in wrong Court, the same requires to be returned as contemplated in Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, to be presented in the appropriate Court. Thus, even if the trial Court comes to the conclusion that in the instant case it has no jurisdiction to try the case, the plaint requires to be returned and the suit cannot be dismissed.
16. Further, in the instant case, the plaintiff has not stated the Specified Value as contemplated under Section 12 of the - 11 - CRP No.545 of 2022 Commercial Courts Act and it would be appropriate for the Court to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to determine the market value of the right, as estimated by him, that he has sought to enforce in the present suit and thereby state as to the Specified Value and thereafter take a decision whether the trial Court has jurisdiction or not to try the case.
17. Hence, the following : ORDER
i. The impugned order dated 03.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.584/2022 by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru city is hereby set aside. ii. Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff is directed to estimate the Specified Value in accordance with Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in respect of the suit before the trial Court. iii. The trial Court upon such estimation by the plaintiff shall determine whether the Specified Value is more than three lakh rupees or not in accordance with the observations made above and take appropriate decision as to whether to try the case or return the plaint back to the plaintiff to be presented before the appropriate Court.-. 12 - CRP No.545 of 2022 The petition is disposed of accordingly. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE AG