{"id":223724,"date":"1998-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998"},"modified":"2016-08-18T22:06:15","modified_gmt":"2016-08-18T16:36:15","slug":"wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998","title":{"rendered":"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1998 RLR 353<\/div>\n
Author: V Jain<\/div>\n
Bench: V Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Vijender Jain, J. <\/p>\n
1.      Plaintiff  has filed this suit for permanent injunction,  infringement of  copyright  and passing off seeking relief of perpetual  injunction  restraining  infringement of copyright as well as passing off. The relief  is valued at Rs.200\/- for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and  court fee  of the amount of Rs.20\/- has been affixed. However, for the relief  of rendition  of  account  of profits, it is valued at Rs.200\/-.  It  will  be interesting to reproduce paragraph 23 (c) of plaint which is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
      (c)  For an order for rendition of accounts of profits  illegally earned  by the defendants, it is valued at Rs.200\/- for  purposes of  Court  fee  and the requisite amount of Court  fee  has  been affixed. This relief is valued at Rs.5,50,000\/- for the  purposes  of  jurisdiction, as the plaintiff estimates that such an  amount shall  be found due to the plaintiff on accounts being  rendered. The plaintiff undertakes to pay such additional Court fee as  may be  found due when the actual amount is rendered and  ascertained by  this  Hon’ble Court. That the plaintiff is valuing  the  said relief separately for the purposes of Court fee and  jurisdiction in  terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench  of  this  Court   and of  the Hon’ble Supreme Court .\n<\/p>\n
2.   At the outset this Court took objection that the Court fee paid on the plaint  was  arbitrary,  whimsical and without basis as  nothing  has  been averred  in the whole plaint regarding the profits illegally earned by  the defendant  or  approximation of the sale conducted by the  defendants.  Not even a whisper in the plaint has been made regarding damages being suffered by  the plaintiff except a bald averment in para 23(C) of the  plaint  that for the purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiff valued the relief for rendition of account at Rs.5,50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Mr.  Ajay  Sahni,  learned counsel for  the  plaintiff  has  addressed
\nlengthy arguments that it is the right of the plaintiff to value the relief
\nfor  the purpose of jurisdiction under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 2  of
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 7 of the Court Fee Act,  1870
\nand Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 read along with Rules 3 &  4 of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and on the basis of the  aforesaid enactment Mr.Sahni has contended that in view of the amendment in  the Punjab  & Haryana High Court Rules and in view of Rules 3 & 4 of  the  said amendment,  the plaintiff has got the right to fix any value for suits  for rendition of accounts.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules is relevant, which is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “(i) Suits in which plaintiff in the plaint seeks to recover  the amount  which may be found due to the plaintiff in taking  unsettled accounts between him and the defendant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) Suits of either of the kinds described in Order XX, Rule  13 of the Code of Civil Procedure;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Value for the purpose    (a) As determined by the\n     of Court Fee             Court Fees Act, 1870. \n     Value for the            (b) For the purposes of\n     purpose of               the Suits Valuation\n     jurisdiction             Act, 1887, and the Punjab \n                         Courts Act, 1918, as valued by \n                         the plaintiff in the plaint, \n                         subject to determination by the \n                         Court at any stage of the trial.\"\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
     Mr.  Sahni  has  contended that if the Court ultimately  comes  to  an opinion  from the material on record or evidence adduced that the  suit  is under- valued or over-valued, the Court can pass appropriate order. But  at the time of institution of the suit, law enjoins plaintiff the right to fix its own valuation for the relief of rendition of account and for  valuation purposes  of jurisdiction. In case of former, the suit has been  valued  at Rs.200\/-  and the later at Rs.5,50,000\/-. He has cited the whole catena  of cases  i.e.  M\/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and  Ors.  Vs.  Vimal Pannalal;  , Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. Balaji Tea  (India) Pvt.  Ltd.; 1993 PTC 40, M\/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Co. & others  Vs. Vimla Panna Lal; , M\/s Eastman Kodak Company Vs. M\/s M.R. Electronics  &  Others; 1995 PTC 146 and Automatic Electric Ltd.  Vs.  R.K.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dhawan  & Anr.;  as well as M\/s P.M. Diesels Ltd.  Vs.  M\/s Patel Field Marshal Industries & Anr.; FAO(OS) 270\/95 decided on 13.3.1998.\n<\/p>\n
5.   On the basis of the aforesaid authorities, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff could put his own value for  the purposes of jurisdiction and the grievance that the value for  jurisdiction is  higher would make no practical difference since the value for  purposes of  Court  fee could be different in view of the Rules being  framed  under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act.\n<\/p>\n
6.   There is no controversy regarding fixing of Court fee by the plaintiff on  the relief of rendition of account, choice is left to the plaintiff  to exercise  that  right in a proper manner. This view has  been  consistently taken  by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Sheila Devi & Ors. Vs.  Shri Kishan  Lal Kalra & Ors.; ILR 1974 (2) Delhi 491 as well as Division  Bench of  this  Court in M\/s Fenner India Ltd. Vs. M\/s Salbros  Enterprises  Pvt. Ltd.;  FAO  (OS) 204 and CM 2685\/1995 decided on  9.4.1997.  The  authority cited by learned counsel for the plaintiff i.e. P.M. Diesel Ltd. (Supra) is of no help to him as in that matter the controversy arose on account of  an application for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the  suit was dismissed holding that plaintiff has not been able to prima facie  show that territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
7.   However,  in  the case before me, the plaintiff has  filed  this  suit seeking  injunction, inter alia, alleging that according to him,  plaintiff is  fourth  largest veterinary drug manufacturer in the country and  he  is seeking  injunction in view of his trade mark being registered,  the  goods are being sold by the defendant by utilising the goodwill and trade name of the  plaintiff.  The prayer for rendition of account is  ancillary  to  the prayer  of injunction which is also made. In para 23 (b) for the relief  of perpetual  injunction  restraining passing off, the plaintiff has  given  a valuation of Rs.200\/- for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction.  Without  any  averment in plaint in para 23(c), the plaintiff  has  valued  the relief for rendition of account for Rs.200\/- for the purpose of Court  fee, while valuing it for the purpose of jurisdiction, the same relief is valued at Rs.5,50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
8.   No doubt law gives a right to the plaintiff to value the suit for  the relief  of rendition of account and for the purpose of  jurisdiction  separately.  But whether the plaintiff has exercised that right to  divest  the right forum or has artificially invested this court with the  jurisdiction, is a point which has to be pondered over. Whether the plaintiff has got the right  to value the relief for jurisdiction in an arbitrary  and  whimsical manner? Whether the plaintiff has a right to value the suit without  laying down  any foundation in the plaint merely to exclude the jurisdiction of  a Court  which otherwise would have got the jurisdiction but for three  lines written in para 23 (c) of the suit? These are certain issues which have  to be addressed.\n<\/p>\n
9.   There cannot be two opinion with the proposition of law as  enunciated by  the Supreme Court as well as this Court in view of the decisions  cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff can pay fixed court fee for unsettled accounts and for jurisdiction purposes such a suit can be valued in terms of valuation fixed by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
10.  In  the case before me the valuation for the purpose  of  jurisdiction has been quantified with the sole objective to confer jurisdiction on  this Court  as this Court will have pecuniary jurisdiction if the  valuation  of the subject matter is over Rs.5 lakhs, otherwise in the normal course,  the jurisdiction would lie with the District Judge. No doubt law provides  that in  case of relief for rendition of account when the amount is  not  ascertained  the  plaintiff cannot be asked to give a specific  and  ascertained figure  of the amount on which relief is sought in the suit. But that  does not give a licence to plaintiff to give a wholly arbitrary and unreasonable figure  so as to divest a Court which has got the jurisdiction to  try  the suit and to invest a Court which for these aforesaid three lines would  not have the jurisdiction to try the suit by giving a higher valuation so as to bring suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
11.  I would like to mention that peculiar situation has arisen in Delhi as most of the High Courts in the country do not have Original Side  Jurisdiction.  The suit in relation to infringement, passing off etc. is filed  for obtaining  perpetual injunction. Suit has to be filed before  the  District Judge  but  to bring this suit to be maintained in this Court,  relief  for rendition  of account is added wherein relief for rendition of  account  is valued at Rs.200\/- and for the purpose of jurisdiction the relief is valued at more than 5 lakhs rupees, whole exercise is for maintaining the suit  in this  Court  and that is why figure of jurisdictional value is  fixed  over Rs.5 lakhs so as to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Original  side  of  the Delhi High Court. There is neither  any  nexus  nor rational  or  objectivity and not even a whisper in the plaint as  on  what basis  the approximation value of jurisdiction has been arrived at  by  the plaintiff at Rs.5,50,000\/-. Least a plaintiff, if he feels and takes advantage of the settled proposition of law to value the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction  differently  than for the purpose of relief,  ought  to  have given some reasons in the plaint, which I find totally missing in the  case before hand. This fixation of valuation is demonstrably arbitrary, given to oust the jurisdiction of the Court of the first instance, i.e. the Court of the District Judge. Relief of rendition of account is sought in this  suit, which  is  essentially a suit for injunction and to maintain this  suit  in this  Court in paragraph 23(c) an averment has been made that for the  purpose  of jurisdiction, the value is fixed at Rs.5,50,000\/-. The  foundation of  suit emanates from the breach of legal obligation regarding  copyright, trade  mark  and passing off, where the first and foremost  relief  is  the relief of injunction. The relief for rendition of account is only to  bring the  suit within the ambit of Section 9 of the Suits Valuation  Act,  Court Fee  Act, read with Rules 3 & 4 of the Punjab & Haryana High  Court  Rules. The valuation in this suit over Rs.5 lakhs is arbitrary and whimsical.\n<\/p>\n
12.  In  the case of Abdul Hamid Shamsi Vs. Abdul Majid and Ors.; , the Supreme Court held:\n<\/p>\n
      “It  is true that in a suit for accounts the correct amount  payable  by one party to the other can be ascertained only when  the accounts are examined and it is not possible to give an  accurate valuation  of the claim at the inception of the suit. The  plaintiff is, therefore, allowed to give his own tentative  valuation. Ordinarily  the  Court shall not examine the correctness  of  the valuation  chosen,  but the plaintiff cannot act  arbitrarily  in this  matter.  If a plaintiff chooses  whimsically  a  ridiculous figure  it  is  tantamount to not exercising his  right  in  this regard.  In such a case it is not only open to the Court but  its duty to reject such a valuation.”\n<\/p>\n
13.  The  Apex Court in M\/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Company  and  Ors. Vs. Vimal Pannalal;  has held:\n<\/p>\n
      “We  are also of the view that the plaintiff  cannot  whimsically choose  a ridiculous figure for filing the suit most  arbitrarily where there are positive materials and\/or objective standards  of valuation  of  the relief appearing on the face  of  the  plaint. These materials or objective standards will also enable the Court to  determine  the valuation for the purpose of Order  VII,  Rule 11(b)  of  the Code of Civil Procedure. Indeed,  in  Abdul  Hamid Shamsi’s case, it has been noticed by this Court that the  plaintiff has laid a claim to a sum of Rs.1,26,796.72, besides another sum of over Rs.84,000\/- as his share in the profit for a particular  period  by  reference to the proceeding  of  the  Income-tax Department  mentioned  in paragraph 11 of the plaint.  Further  a copy  of the profit and loss account for the calender  year  1979 was annexed by the plaintiff to the additional affidavit filed on his behalf before this Court, which also gave positive indication as  to  the valuation of the relief. The plaintiff in  that  case valued the suit without making any reference whatsoever to  those materials  or  objective standards available to him  and  in  the context  of these facts, this Court made the  above  observation. But   if  there  be  no  material  or  objective  standard,   the     plaintiff’s valuation has to be accepted.”\n<\/p>\n
14.  In A.KA.CT.V.C.T Meenakshisundaran Chettiar Vs. A.KA.CT.V.C.T.  Venkatachalam  Chettiar; , the Supreme Court held that  in  suits for account, it is not possible for the plaintiff to estimate correctly the amounts which he may be entitled to held:\n<\/p>\n
      “But  it  is  necessary that the amount at which  he  values  the relief sought for should be a reasonable estimate.”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Supreme Court further held in paragraph 7 of the same judgment  as follows :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     If  on the materials available before it the Court  is  satisfied that the value of relief as estimated by the plaintiff in a  suit for accounts is undervalued, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It  is, therefore, necessary that the plaintiff should take  care that the valuation is adequate and reasonable taking into account the circumstances of the case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     If  he  cannot estimate the exact amount he can put  a  tentative valuation  upon the suit for accounts which is adequate and  reasonable. The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and deliberately undervalue the relief.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.  Can  it be said, in view of what their Lordship of the  Supreme  Court laid down in M\/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Co. (supra) that in the  suit before  me that there is material on the basis of which it could be  judged as to how all of a sudden in para 23(c) of the plaint the relief for rendition  of account has been valued at Rs.5,50,000\/-, whereas for the  purpose of  Court fee it has been valued at Rs.200\/-? I am of the opinion that  the plaintiff  has  chosen  said figure for filing this suit  in  an  arbitrary manner  in this Court, thereby giving an artificial pecuniary  jurisdiction
\nto this Court.\n<\/p>\n
16.  Arguments  have  been advanced before me by the learned  counsel  that this Court is having concurrent jurisdiction in terms of Section 62 of  the Copyright  Act and Section 106 of the Trade & Mercantile Marks  Act.  There are  no two opinions that in case where pecuniary valuation of the suit  is over Rs.5 lakhs, this Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the  suit exercising  Original Civil Jurisdiction. Section 62 of the  Copyrights  Act
\nand  Section 106 of the Trade & Merchantile Marks Act give jurisdiction  to this Court on the Original Side to hear the suit in the same manner as  the Court of District Judge subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction of over  five lakhs of rupees.\n<\/p>\n
17.  Section  15  of the Code of Civil Procedure on the statute  book  lays down that :\n<\/p>\n
      “15.  Court in which suits to be instituted_ Every suit shall  be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.”\n<\/p>\n
     Thus when there are two forums available to the plaintiff, the  plaintiff  has to file the suit at the Court of the lowest grade. The  reasoning of  Section  15 of the Code of Civil Procedure that every  suit  should  be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, is intended  for the protection of the Courts of higher grade from  over-burderning. The  suit like the one before me has been filed by fixing a  whimsical  and arbitrary  valuation  with no material whatsoever. Thousands of  suits  are pending  on the Original Side of the High Court. Litigants are waiting  for more  than  20  years for their substantive suits to be  heard  and  rights determined  but on account of three lines in the plaint all these  helpless litigants, having paid Court fee, are sidelined to decide an  interlocutory application.  This is not what the rule of law is meant for.  Unnecessarily
\noverburdening  the Court system when there is efficacious machinery  available, the ingenuity of making averment in the plaint regarding fixation  of the  valuation  for the purpose of jurisdiction, in my  opinion,  will  not invest  this Court with the jurisdiction to try the suit. For  the  reasons stated above, the plaint is returned with a direction that the same may  be filed  in the Court of District Judge having jurisdiction to deal with  the matter.\n<\/p>\n
     Order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
18.  Copy of the judgment be placed in the files of Suit Nos.348\/98, 185\/98 and 184\/98.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1998 RLR 353 Author: V Jain Bench: V Jain ORDER Vijender Jain, J. 1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright and passing off seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining infringement of copyright […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-18T16:36:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\\\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-18T16:36:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2860,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998\",\"name\":\"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\\\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-18T16:36:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\\\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-18T16:36:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998","datePublished":"1998-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-18T16:36:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998"},"wordCount":2860,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998","name":"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-18T16:36:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wockhardt-veterinary-ltd-vs-ms-raj-medicos-anr-on-20-april-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M\/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223724","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}