Delhi District Court
Mindtrek Edutech P. Ltd vs Eastern Institute For Integrated ... on 29 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR, CIVIL JUDGE,
SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Ms. Prabh Deep Kaur, DJS
Suit No.198/2016(New No.50675/2016)
Unique ID no.02406C0092422014
In the matter of :
Mindtrek Edutech P. Ltd.
Through its Director Mr. Rajesh Kumar Modi
B19, Ground floor, Old DLF Colony
Sector14, Gurgaon122001 .........Plaintiff.
vs
1.Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management university (EIILM) University through its registrar, Col. (Retd.) Alok Kumar Bhandari
2. Mr. Vinay Rai, Chairman, EIILM University
3. Ms. Usha Agarwala, Chancellor, EIILM University
4. Dr. O. B. Vijayan, Vice Chancellor, EIILM University
5. Prof. Mini Juneja, Pro Vice Chancellor EIILM University
6. Mr. Vinod Dahiya, Controller of examinations, EIILM university
7. Col. (Retd.) Alok Kumar Bhandari Registrar, EIILM University
8. Mr. Tarun Agarwal, Accounts Head & Coordinator EIILM University ALL At:
Space City, BII/1, MCIE Mathura Road, New Delhi110044 ALSO AT:
Directorate of Distance Learning, EIILM University, Global Business School Building B11/100 MCIE, Mathura Road New Delhi110044 ALSO AT:
A41, MCIE, Mathura Road, New Delhi ALSO AT:
CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 1 of 12
Jorethang, District Namchi
Sikkim737121 ........Defendants.
Date of institution of Suit : 21.04.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 08.09.2016
Date of pronouncement of the order : 20.09.2016
EX PARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the present suit has been disposed off.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit with the following prayer:
"pass a decree for specific performance of the memorandum of understanding dated 12.03.2011 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to perform their legal obligations and duties envisaged in the said memorandum of understanding dated 12.03.2011;
Pass a decree of mandatory directing the defendants to verify the mark sheets of eligible students for the academic session August September 2011, February 2012 and September 2012 issued by it and handed over to the plaintiff.
Pass a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over the pending mark sheets duplicate mark sheets, provisional migration, degrees, diploma etc. of the already admitted eligible students for the academic session August, September 2011, February 2012 and September 2012 to the plaintiff. Award the cost of present case may be also awarded in favour of plaintiff."
2. Plaintiff's averments:
2.1. The plaintiff is a private limited company and is a known and reputed Educational Institute having goodwill in the market and offers educational courses such as Certificate, Diploma, Post Graduate Diploma, Under Graduate & Post Graduate courses under collaboration with various universities and has its registered office in CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 2 of 12 Gurgaon at the above said address. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Modi is one of the Directors of the plaintiff and is authorized vide a board resolution dated 09.04.2014 to sign and verify the plaint, to engage the services of an advocate and to institute the present suit.
2.2. Defendant no. 1 is a Private University, recognized and approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and established by Act No. 4, 2006 of Govt. of Sikkim on 24.03.2006 published under Government of Sikkim vide Gazette Notification No. 28/LD/2006, dated 3rd April, 2006, defendant no. 2, defendant no. 7 is the Registrar of the said University, defendant no. 8 are in charge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the said University. 2.3. Defendant no. 1 through defendant no. 7, i.e. Col. (Retd.) Alok Kumar Bhandari approached and represented to the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 is a reputed Private University which is recognized and approved by UGC and is desirous of running its Distance Education courses offered by the said University in India leading to award of certificates, diplomas and degrees to the successful eligible students. He further represented that the said University wishes to appoint a National Coordinator who can inter alia recommend quality institutions to the university for the purpose of Authorization to become Admission and Counseling Centre of the University for all the Distance Education courses offered by it.
2.4. Accordingly a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.03.2011 was entered between defendant no. 1, i.e. the University and the plaintiff and Rs. 12,00,000/ (Rupees Twelve Lacs) was demanded from the plaintiff as National Coordinator Authorization CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 3 of 12 Fee by the University which was paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was further promised by defendant no. 1 through defendant no. 7 that the plaintiff shall get 50% share of the Authorization Fees, 40% share of all other Fees except course fee and 20% share of the course fees as professional fees for its services.
2.5. Accordingly, the plaintiff recommended quality institutions to the University i.e. defendant no. 1 for the purpose of authorization to become its admission and counseling center. The plaintiff thereafter provided support to the admission and counseling Center authorized and approved by the University in the form of marketing, advertising, promotion, infrastructure, counseling, admission process, academic process, imparting training and development of the marketing, counseling and other staff members. The plaintiff further developed a marketing and counseling process thereby generating admissions for the University from the Admission and Counseling Centers. 2.6. National Coordinator of the University, the plaintiff did its work efficiently & effectively and timely collected, processed and submitted the admission forms, eligibility documents, university fees share etc. to the university and its officials.
2.7. The plaintiff supplied the data of the eligible students to the university and its officials i.e. the defendants herein and the defendants conducted the examinations for the students at the authorized and approved admission and counseling centers and the plaintiff ensured that the answer sheets were promptly sent to the University Controller of Examinations office i.e. defendant no. 6. It was responsibility of the university through its office bearers i.e. the CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 4 of 12 defendants herein to declare the results within 45 days of the receipt of the answer sheets and handover the marks sheet of the students to the plaintiff which were to be issued within 30 days of the declaration of the results.
2.8. Plaintiff generated admissions for the university for the academic sessions AugustSeptember, 2011, February, 2012 and September, 2012 but to the utter shock, horror and grief of the plaintiff, it found out that even after conducting the examinations and declaring the results by the university i.e. defendant no. 1, the marks sheets, provisional, migration, degrees etc. of many students were not being timely issued by the university and the marks sheets and other documents which were already issued by the University and its office bearers i.e. the defendants herein had lots of clerical & typographical mistakes such as duplicate mark sheets with different serial number, two enrollment number of same student, same session on second and third year mark sheets etc. Also, many of the mark sheets already issued by the University to the students of the admission and counseling center authorized and approved by the university which were recommended by the plaintiff were not being verified by the university.
2.9. Certain criminal cases were registered against the university (defendant no.1) and its officials including its chairman (defendant no. 2), Vice Chancellor (defendant no. 4), Registrar (defendant no. 7) and Controller of Examinations (defendant no. 6) and when Sikkim Police had visited the office of the plaintiff in November, 2012 for the purpose of investigation, the plaintiff had provided the list of all the CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 5 of 12 students of the university to the police and a copy of the same was also submitted to the Sikkim Government.
2.10. The development in Sikkim in September October, 2012, the plaintiff was asked by defendant no. 5, i.e. Pro Vice Chancellor of the University to submit the list of students of AugustSeptember, 2011 and February, 2012 sessions for reconciliation and verification and accordingly the plaintiff submitted the said list of students with their enrollment number, roll number and serial number of mark sheets which was duly acknowledged by the officials of the University i.e. the defendants herein. There was written acknowledgment and certification from the university vide its office bearers i.e. the defendants herein that all the students/enrollment number/roll number/serial number of AugustSeptember, 2011 and February, 2012 sessions stands verified by the University. 2.11. In spite of these acknowledgments from University regarding verification of all the students, many students are not being verified by the University.
2.12. Plaintiff provided the detail to the defendants of all the students who had appeared in September, 2012 examinations and in other sessions conducted by the University and had cleared the exams but have not received their mark sheets and other documents from the University and regarding the corrections required in documents already issued by the university to the students but no action was taken by the university and it seemed that the university was only interested in collecting the fees and not fulfill its obligations towards the plaintiff and the students.CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 6 of 12
2.13. Vide letters, emails, personal meetings and telephonic conversations, the plaintiff tried to persuade the defendants to resolve all its issue and letters dated 11.10.2012, 12.02.2013, 14.03.2013, 18.03.2013, 20.03.2012, 23.03.2013, 28.03.2013, 29.03.2013, 01.04.2013, 03.04.2013, 08.04.2013, 17.04.2013, 22.04.2013, 29.04.2013, 29.04.2013, 03.05.2013, 16.05.2013, 17.05.2013, 20.05.2013, 21.05.2013, 22.05.2013, 31.05.2013, 03.06.2013, 10.06.2013 and 08.10.2013 were duly received and acknowledged by the university and its management i.e. the defendants herein & various emails were also written by the plaintiff to the university and its management but to no anvil.
2.14. There is no justification or lawful excuse for the defendants to have illegally hold up the marks sheets, provisional, migration, degrees etc. of the eligible students of the university and by not verifying all the marks sheets and other documents already issued by the university and further not correcting the mistakes in these documents, had not only caused loss of reputation and harassment to the plaintiff but has also caused it very heavy financial losses as well as cast aspirations on the plaintiff's professional integrity in the eyes of students as well as general public. As a result of these illegal acts of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered grievous and irreparable damage to its reputation which is actionable at law. 2.15. Only 20% to 30% of the students and their mark sheets are being able to be verified through the "Student Verification Window"
on the University's website i.e. http://www.eiilmuniversity.ac.in. in resulting in chaos and confusion among other students of the CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 7 of 12 university.
2.16. Being so dejected and victimized by the malpractices and arm twisting techniques adopted by the defendants, the plaintiff was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 08.02.2014 upon the defendants to which defendant no. 1, defendant no. 2, defendant no. 4 and defendant no. 7 through their counsel sent a frivolous reply based on fabricated and concocted grounds.
2.17. Plaintiff respectfully submits that it has always been ready and had specifically performed the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.03.2011 whereas the defendants have neglected or refused to perform their part of the Memorandum of Understanding, the plaintiff is entitled to get the enforcement of the Memorandum of Understanding through this Hon'ble Court, hence this present suit is being filed. Plaintiff reserves its right to seek the leave of the court to amend/alter the plaint in the eventuality the plaintiff discovers and new facts at a later stage affecting its rights.
2.18. The plaintiff is filing the present suit for specific performance of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.03.2011 and for mandatory injunction against the defendants for which it is legally entitled.
3. The summons have been issued to the defendant. The defendant has been served on 18.10.2014. However, despite service, defendant failed to appear before this Court nor has filed WS. Therefore, defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 19.03.2015.CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 8 of 12
4. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 to prove his case. PW1 has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. PW1 has relied upon the following documents:
a) Board resolution dated 09.04.2014 is Ex.PW1/A;
b) Copy of MOU dated 12.03.2011 executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 through defendant No. 7 is Mark A.
c) Letter dated 15.03.2011 issued by defendant No. 1 through defendant No.7 is Ex. PW1/2.
d) Copies of letter written by plaintiff to the defendants are Mark C to Q.
e) Letter written in March 2013 by plaintiff is Ex.PW1/3;
f) letter dated 03.05.2013 is Ex.PW1/4;
g) letter dated 16.05.2013 is Ex.PW1/5;
h) letter dated 17.05.2013 is Ex.PW1/6;
i) letter dated 20.05.2013 is Ex.PW1/7;
j) letter dated 22.05.2013 is Ex.PW1/8;
k) letter dated 31.05.2013 is Ex.PW1/9;
l) letter dated 03.06.2013 is Ex.PW1/10;
m)letter dated 10.06.2013 is Ex.PW1/11;
n) receipt issued by defendant no.1 is marked as Mark R, letter dated 08.10.2013 is Ex.PW1/12;
o) legal notice dated 08.02.2014 issued by plaintiff to defendants is Ex.PW1/3;
p) reply dated 27.03.2014 sent by defendant no.2 is Ex.PW1/14;CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 9 of 12
q) reply dated 29.03.2014 sent by defendant no.1 and 7 is Ex.PW1/15 and reply dated 31.03.2014 is Ex.PW1/16;
r) documents i.e. Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/19 in affidavit be read as Mark C to P, Ex.PW1/24 be read as Mark Q, Ex.PW1/29 be read as Mark R, Ex.PW1/12 be read as Mark A, Ex.PW1/4 be read as Mark B.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In the present case, plaintiff is seeking relief of specific performance of MOU dated 12.03.2011. In the present case, as per plaintiff, defendant no.1 is a university duly approved from UGC and vide MOU between plaintiff and defendant no.1 executed by defendant no.1 through defendant no.7, it was agreed that plaintiff would work as National Coordinator for defendant no.1 university and plaintiff through other institutions generated admissions for the university / defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 was required to conduct examinations and to issue mark sheets after verification of admission forms etc. and to do other specific acts related to the process.
7. It is not a simplicitor suit for specific performance between two personals and it is a litigation where the future of many students is at stake. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on following grounds.
(I) The plaintiff has not filed even a single document to show that defendant no.1 is a university actually approved and recognized by the UGC ;
(ii) The plaintiff has filed photocopy of MOU dated 12.03.2011 but CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 10 of 12 has not even proved the MOU by calling the witness or by any other mode of proof to prove a document by secondary evidence;
(iii) The plaintiff has stated that he has given Rs.12 lacs to defendant no.1 as National Coordinator Authorization Fee but he has not filed even a single document to corroborate the fact of payment by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 university.
(iv) The plaintiff has not given the details of the students who have got admission to the defendant no.1 university through plaintiff nor plaintiff has given any details of the students who have actually appeared in any examination of defendant no.1 through plaintiff.
(v) The plaintiff has sought the mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to verify the mark sheets of eligible students for academic session of August, September 2011, February 2012 and September 2012 but plaintiff has not filed the copy of mark sheet which has not verified as per plaintiff to prove even the prima facie existence of any mark sheet of any eligible students for the abovesaid session nor plaintiff has specified the name and nature of the courses for which this said mark sheets have been issued.
(vi) The plaintiff has sought the mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to hand over duplicate marks sheets, provisional, migration degrees etc. of already admitted eligible students for the academic session of August, September 2011, February 2012 and September 2012 but plaintiff has not filed the details of students and course regarding which the plaintiff is seeking abovesaid relief.
8. Clearly, it appears that the suit is completely devoid of any CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 11 of 12 specific particulars as required under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC and plaintiff has completely failed to prove its case. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed being devoid of merits.
9. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court (Prabh Deep Kaur) th On this 20 day of September 2016 Civil Judge, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi CS No.198/2016 Mindtrek Eductech P. Ltd. Vs EIILM University Page 12 of 12