Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Kashish Gupta vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 2 December, 2025

              IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER MOHAN,
                DISTRICT JUDGE-14, LAC, CENTRAL ,
                    TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI


CS DJ 5/23
CNR No. : DLCT01-017666-2022

In The Matter Of :

KASHISH GUPTA
Resident Of : H. No. 9, Atta-ur-Rehman Lane,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.                                       ......... Plaintiff

                                  VERSUS

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY
Through its Director,
Hauz Khas, near Gulmohar Park,
Delhi-110016.                     ......... Defendant

                    Date of Institution     : 24.12.2022
                    Date of Final Arguments : 20.09.2025
                    Date of Judgment        : 02.12.2025

                                   JUDGMENT

1. Vide the present suit, plaintiff seeks recovery for a sum of Rs. 9,19,300/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of payment till actual realization from the defendant.

2. Plaintiff took admission in post-graduation course of the defendant institute in Masters of Designs, NIFT, New Delhi Campus against NRI quota seat and paid a fees of Rs. 9,30,200/- which CS DJ 5/23 KASHISH GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY Page 1 of 9 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:

2025.12.02 16:23:54 +0530 includes Rs. 10,900/- as security deposit. She got this admission in second round of the counselling after she applied for upgrade being not satisfied with the admission in the first round which was at Panchkula Campus. She, however, quit the said course and intimation regarding the same was given to the defendant vide e-mail dated 29.08.2021 seeking refund of the fees and thereafter, she joined the course of Company Secretary with another institute. As per the plaintiff, the decision to change the course was taken because of her health issues and further, the course was well-connected with her commerce stream.

3. Defendant in its WS refuses to refund the fees primarily on the following grounds :

i. The request for withdrawal was made by the plaintiff after the cut- off date fixed by the defendant institute which was published in prospectus, admission brochure and also notification which was available on the website.

ii. As per notification dated 27.07.2021, request for refund/ withdrawal was required to be made only through online portal and despite knowledge of the same plaintiff chose to make this request only via e-mail dated 29.08.2021.

iii. Defendant also claims that no valid notice u/s 80 CPC was served upon by the plaintiff before institution of the present suit. iv. Defendant is an autonomous institute under the Ministry of Textiles of India and governed by the rules and bye-laws and all the actions were taken as per NIFT Rules framed by the NIFT for admission.

CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:

2025.12.02 16:24:03 +0530

4. Plaintiff Kashish Gupta stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint. She inter alia relied upon a receipt Ex.A/2 which is an invoice dated 13.08.2021 issued by NIFT for a total sum of Rs. 9,30,200/- for academic year 2021. Further, the break-up of the fees under various heads i.e., tuition fees, library fee, medical claim, exam fee, security deposit etc. is mentioned in the same, Ex.A/4 is the copy of the e- mail dated 29.08.2021 sent by the plaintiff to the NIFT intimating withdrawal of her admission, Ex.A/5 is the admit card for December 2021 Session, Ex.A/6 is another e-mail sent by plaintiff to NIFT seeking withdrawal of admission. Ex.A/7 is copy of the legal notice dated 28.02.2021 issued by the plaintiff through her advocate asking refund of the amount of Rs. 9,30,200/- within 20 days and she specifically mentions that a failure to refund may result in seeking recourse to legal remedies. Plaintiff further relies upon several guidelines, notifications issued by Ministry of Human Resource & Development, UGC etc. regarding refund and return of fees.

5. Defendant examined DW-1, Ms. Rajni Shah, working as Legal Officer with NIFT. She relies upon the copy of prospectus of defendant instituiton Ex.DW1/B, copy of notification dated 27.07.2021 Ex.DW1/C, reply to legal notice dated 02.05.2022 which is Ex. DW1/D, copy of the fee structure Ex.DW1/E. Defendant further examined DW-2 Dr. Vijay Kumar Dua, Professor-In-Charge Admission, NIFT who tendered into evidence the printout of the application form of the plaintiff which includes her undertaking.

CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:

2025.12.02 16:24:24 +0530

6. At the outset, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff has failed to serve a notice u/s 80 CPC. This objection is hyper-technical in nature. Admittedly, plaintiff before institution of the present suit had served a notice dated 28.02.2022 alongwith tracking report and copy of the same is placed on record and even the same has been replied by the defendant on 02.05.2022 and copy of the same has been admitted by defendant and placed on record as Ex.DW1/D. Merely because the said notice does not bear the caption "Notice u/s 80 CPC" will not diminish its substance. The objective of Section 80 CPC is to give State an opportunity to reconsider its legal position so that it is justified to make amends and settle the claim out of the Court. This objective stands fulfilled by the notice dated 28.02.2022 issued by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the contention of plaintiff that suit is bad because of want of notice u/s 80 CPC is hereby rejected.

7. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff is not entitled to refund of fees because the request for withdrawal of admission was made after the cut-off date set by the defendant and same is clearly mentioned in the prospectus alongwith notification dated 27.07.2021 which stipulates that candidates who withdraw after the cut-off date will only be refunded security deposit. Copy of notification Ex.DW1/C reveals that withdrawal of admission after the cut-off date will lead to the forfeiture of the entire fees except security deposit. Admittedly, plaintiff made request for withdrawal of seat after this date. Plaintiff has tried to plead ignorance of this cut-off date and even stated that same was not CS DJ 5/23 KASHISH GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY Page 4 of 9 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:

2025.12.02 16:24:32 +0530 binding on her because she was never served with the notification dated 27.07.2021 or even the prospectus by e-mail, post or any other mode. It is further argued that she was not individually communicated about the same. It is however, not in dispute that copy of prospectus and notification dated 27.07.2021 was available on website of NIFT. In the opinion of this Court, publication on website amounts to constructive notice and no personal communication is required, in fact, same is not possible in modern times when institution have to conduct examination of thousands of candidates and that too for several courses. The entire process of admission was online. It is duty of the candidate to carefully study the prospectus and notifications and other information uploaded by an institution on its website from time to time. In her cross-examination, plaintiff states that " I had not gone through the prospectus of NIFT before applying for the above course." She further states that "I am not aware about a notification dated 27.07.2021 issued by NIFT". To contradict this fact, Defendant no. 2, Dr. Vijay Kumar Dua, Professor-In-Charge, Admission stepped into the witness-box and produced Ex.DW2/A i.e. copy of application form filled online by the plaintiff which contains an undertaking of plaintiff that she has read the prospectus and further, there is also an undertaking on her part mentioning the timelines. Hence, plaintiff had constructive and even actual notice of the cut-off date fixed by the defendant institute for withdrawal of admission and no benefit of ignorance can be availed by her and further, she cannot plead now that it was in a standard format.

                                                           CHANDER         MOHAN
                                                           MOHAN           Date:
                                                                           2025.12.02
                                                                           16:24:39 +0530

8. Moving further, it is argued by the plaintiff that terms of admission and undertakings are offered in a standard form with no opportunity for negotiation or modification and plaintiff had no option but to accept them even if they are harsh i.e., plaintiff lacked bargaining power and Court can definitely examine them if they appear unconscionable. There appears to be some merit in this submission of the plaintiff. This Court may not have power to declare the stipulations mentioned in the prospectus as ultra vires but definitely Court can examine as to whether reasonable time is given to the candidates for withdrawal of their admission and consequently fees paid and if the same is found arbitrary, amounting to unjust enrichment or without any justification and serves no purpose, the Court may declare the same as not binding on the candidate.

9. Facts would reveal that defendant institution advertised five seats under NRI category and only two students including the plaintiff took admission under NRI category and after withdrawal of admission by the plaintiff only one student remained in NRI category. These facts have been admitted by DW-1 Rajni Shah, Legal Officer, NIFT in her cross-examination dated 05.08.2025.

This fact has been highlighted as the same reveals that even after plaintiff took admission under NRI quota there were still three seats left vacant under this category i.e. 3 seats remained unfilled meaning thereby withdrawal of plaintiff even after the cut-off date did not cause loss or deprive any other potential candidate of admission because still there were three vacant seats which could have been offered. Accordingly, the loss, if any, is restricted to the institution CS DJ 5/23 KASHISH GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY Page 6 of 9 Digitally signed by CHANDER MOHAN CHANDER Date: MOHAN 2025.12.02 16:24:46 +0530 only and not to any third-party or potential candidate. Hence, the argument of Ld. Counsel for defendant that withdrawal of the plaintiff caused wastage of one seat is not supported by facts. I have carefully examined the issue of monetary loss to the defendant institute which may be caused by the full refund of fees. Firstly, admittedly, defendant institute is an autonomous institute directly governed by Ministry of Textiles of India and therefore, it ought not to be guided by profit-making only. India is a welfare state. Constitutional endeavour as enshrined in Fundamental Duties is to provide environment in which an individual can realise his/her true potential. Plaintiff has categorically pleaded that after taking admission with the defendant institute she quit the same to join the course of Company Secretary which was well-connected with her commerce stream i.e. the subsequent course aligned more with the educational background of the plaintiff and probably her dream. It is well-known that several institutes are conducting exams simultaneously and results of the same are declared at different time and on different dates and under these circumstances a candidate cannot take any chance by leaving what falls in her basket because the outcome of subsequent exams is uncertain. It should be the endeavour of the state to frame policies for refund of fees in such a manner that an individual is able to choose her best option and in the opinion of this Court, the cut-off date for refund of fees is against such constitutional goals. Moreover, admittedly, plaintiff never attended even a single class of the defendant institute and non-refund CS DJ 5/23 KASHISH GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY Page 7 of 9 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:

2025.12.02 16:24:53 +0530 of the fees shall amount to unjust enrichment on the part of the defendant.

10. Ld. Counsel for defendant has placed on record several case laws in support of his contention that once a student takes admission after going through the prospectus he/she is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned therein. I have carefully gone through the case laws relied upon by the defendants. Observations made therein are based on their own peculiar facts. In fact, perusal of the facts of these judgments would reveal that they have been made in the background when a candidate has either failed to secure admission or challenges admission process to be unfair etc. Naturally, under the given circumstances the Court has to consider the rules, regulations and promises made in the prospectus as far as eligibility, reservation, examination rules etc. are concerned. The rigors of principles laid down while considering the issues pertaining to aspects like eligibility, reservation, examination rules cannot be transported blindly to a case which only involves issue of fees refund to a candidate who gets admission to another institute which in her opinion gives her better prospects.

11. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the date of withdrawal of admission set by the plaintiff after which entire fees (except security deposit) stood forfeited is arbitrary and unreasonable and is hereby declared not binding on the plaintiff.

This Court is conscious of the fact that no such express relief has been sought by the plaintiff in her prayer clause but it is well settled CS DJ 5/23 KASHISH GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY Page 8 of 9 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:

2025.12.02 16:24:59 +0530 that to meet the interest of justice, the Court can mould the prayer to tune it with the substance of the prayer. As per record, plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 9,19,300/- besides security amount of Rs. 10,900/-. Defendant can only retain security amount.

12. Accordingly, defendant is directed to refund the entire sum of Rs. 9,19,300/- deposited by the plaintiff within a period of one month beginning from today. However, it shall not carry any interest.

13. No order as to costs.

14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

15. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Pronounced in the Open Court Digitally signed by On 2nd December 2025 CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2025.12.02 16:25:11 +0530 (CHANDER MOHAN) District Judge-14, LAC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS DJ 5/23 KASHISH GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY Page 9 of 9