Judgment 1 The Plaintiff has filed the Suit with the following prayers and sought interim reliefs in terms prayers (d), (e) and (f): (a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the patents enumerated in Exhibit ‘J’ to the Plaint and the Patents to be disclosed pursuant to prayer (c) hereof belong to the 1st Defendant and that the 2nd Defendant has no right or interest in respect thereof or any of them; (b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to decree, order and direct the 2nd Defendant to assign and transfer the patents enumerated in Exhibit ‘J’ to the Plaint and the Patents to be disclosed pursuant to prayer (c) hereof to the 1st Defendant without any consideration or compensation and at the exclusive cost of the 2nd Defendant and to do all acts and execute all writings necessary thereof; (c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to decree and direct the 2nd Defendant to disclose on oath all the patents applied for and/or granted and all pending applications in the name of the 2nd Defendant or in the name of any foundation or entity owned and or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the 2nd Defendant; (d) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant a perpetual order of injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant by himself and/or through his servants and/or agents and/or otherwise howsoever from in any manner selling, transferring, assigning, licensing, exploiting, encumbering, creating any third party rights or interest or otherwise dealing with the patents enumerated in Exhibit ‘J’ to the Plaint and the Patents or applications to be disclosed pursuant to prayer (c) hereof except for the purposes of assigning the same in favour of the 1st Defendant; (e) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant a perpetual order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant by itself and/or through its servants and/or agents and/or otherwise howsoever from in any manner selling, transferring, disposing, alienating, encumbering, creating third party rights or otherwise dealing with the other assets and properties of the 1st Defendant including but not limited to (i) GIST or any part thereof (ii) the Gharda House Property at Bandra or any part thereof (iii) the Panoli land property or any part thereof and or (iv) the Lote Land property or any part thereof; (f) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order, decree and direct the 2nd Defendant: (i) to disclose on oath forthwith all the transactions and dealings undertaken by him directly and/or through any other foundation or entity directly and/or indirectly controlled by him with regard to the patents mentioned in Exhibit `J’ to the Plaint and the other patents/applications disclosed pursuant to prayer (c) above and (ii) to render true and faithful account on the basis of willful default of all the profits and income earned by him through all the transactions and dealings undertaken by him directly and/or through any other foundation or entity directly and/or indirectly owned or controlled by him with respect to and/or arising out of patents mentioned in Exhibit `J’ to the Plaint and the other patents/applications disclosed pursuant to prayer (c) above. (g) that upon the account mentioned in prayer (f) above being rendered 2nd Defendant be ordered and decreed to pay over to the 1st Defendant the amount of such profit and income as may be ascertained together with interest thereon @ 18% p.a or such other rate that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper from the date of the suit till payment and/or realization to the 1st Defendant.” 2 The relevant paragraph for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction is as under: "25 For the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, prayers (a) to (f) being incapable of monetary evaluation are valued at Rs.1000/and the value of the patents being far in excess of Rs. 1 crore, prayer (g) is accordingly valued and the maximum court fee of Rs.3,00,000/is paid in respect of the said suit." 3 All the Defendants oppose the Notice of Motion by filing their reply, through Defendant No.2. As objection is raised that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this Suit, the learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.2 submitted that based upon the preliminary objection, it is necessary to decide the jurisdiction issue with regard to the valuation of the Suit for the purpose of court fee and the jurisdiction of this Court. It is settled that for the purposes of valuation of the Suit as well as for jurisdiction, the averments made in the plaint needs to be noted first, specially when precise and definite valuation is difficult. Merely because there is an objection raised by the Defendants with regard to the overvaluation, that itself is not sufficient to dismiss or transfer the Suit. The right and choice of valuation of the Plaintiffs cannot be overlooked by the Court. 4 The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Defendants revolve around basically on the two issues, (i) The valuation even if so made for prayers (a) to (f) at Rs.1,000/, based upon account, that just cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings. The value of the patent is mentioned at Rs.1 crore and above, for prayer (g), for which the plaintiff has paid Rs.3,00,000/as maximum court fee. It is difficult to overlook, unless specifically adjudicated the valuation of the patent. That cannot be the basis for challenging the valuation of the Suit. There is no averment that the patent valuation is undervalued or overvalued. It is difficult to overlook, unless specifically adjudicated the valuation of the patent. That cannot be the basis for challenging the valuation of the Suit. There is no averment that the patent valuation is undervalued or overvalued. The submission is that the patent valuation is not possible. This itself is sufficient to accept the Plaintiffs valuation for the court fee and jurisdiction. 5 There is no specific reply and/or averments made with regard to the said paragraph 25. The vague objection is that this Court has no jurisdiction. The arguments are made only for this issue. 6 The submission referring to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (As amended by the Bombay Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 2008) is of no assistance to the Defendants to decide and/or to accept the case that this Court has no jurisdiction, as to the valuation so made for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. The contention that this High Court on the Original Side has no jurisdiction and the matter is pertaining to City Civil Court, in view of the valuation of Suit at Rs. 1,000/referring to prayers (a) to (f), is also unacceptable. The Court need to consider overall pleadings basically of the Plaintiff at this stage. It is difficult to dissect those prayers merely because for prayer (g), the suit valuation is more than Rs.1 crore though the valuation for prayers (a) to (f) is of Rs.1,000/. In my view, all are interlinked and connected even for the prayers in the Suit. The Plaintiff has paid maximum court fee. The Defendants cannot object to that. 7 In my view, the Plaintiff is master of his pleadings and for whatever may be the reason, he chooses to file the Suit based upon his valuation of in the Original Side of this Court, as there is no contra material available except the above submission so raised, I am inclined to observe that this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Suit so filed along with Notice of Motion. This is not the case of lack of inherent jurisdiction. 8 It is relevant to note that Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 read with Section 9 thereof, provides and/or permits the Court to enquire as to the valuation of the Suit, if Court feels that valuation is not correct and/or incorrectly made. This is not the case of lack of inherent jurisdiction. 8 It is relevant to note that Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 read with Section 9 thereof, provides and/or permits the Court to enquire as to the valuation of the Suit, if Court feels that valuation is not correct and/or incorrectly made. The Court has also power to direct enquiry with regard to the ascertaining of the proper valuation. Therefore, if necessary, the Court and/or its Officer may pass appropriate order. The valuation of patent so made is vague or over valued or under valued or not determinable and/or it may be varied from Rs.1 crore to Rs. 10 crores, therefore, the valuation so made for the purposes of jurisdiction needs not be accepted to proceed with the case. There is no material placed on record to show that the patent valuation as made is totally incorrect and/or wrongly valued. The submission is that the patent valuation if not possible to make, therefore, such valuation so made in the present Suit ought not to have been accepted or should not be accepted, is of no assistance to dismiss or transfer the Suit as prayed. The Court may pass an appropriate order at final stage of the Suit with this regard if necessary. 9 We are not concerned at this stage that the true valuation of the patent. There is no contra material on record except the defence statement. The Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) including the patent right is valuable right for all the commercial purposes. These intangible assets play important role in any financial assessment of the trade/commercial or the market. It changes from time to time, market to market, person to person based upon the situations. If valuation is always a complex and flexible issue and a matter of discussion and debate in business strategies. The patent valuation involves many described and undescribed elements. The valuation so fixed by and paid maximum court fee cannot be discarded on mere defence statement of the defendants. 10 Therefore, taking overall view of the averments made in the plaint, I am inclined to hold that the present Suit as filed, based upon plaintiffs valuation for the Court fee and jurisdiction is maintainable. This Court has jurisdiction to try the Suit. 11 The Notice of Motion be listed for further reliefs for hearing.