Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.42 seconds)
Documents citing University Of Delhi vs Varun Kapur on 4 May, 2011

Sana Ullah Siddqui vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 26 February, 2020

22. In this context, I may note that no such plea is raised in the impugned order. Now, the respondents are trying to improve the ground on which they have cancelled the admission of the petitioner for LLM programme. Be that as it may, reference may be had to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in University of Delhi v. Varun Kapur (supra), where the court held as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

Chhaya Tyagi vs University Of Delhi And Anr. on 22 November, 2023

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on various decisions of this court in the cases of Twinkle Wadhwa v. University of Delhi1, University of Delhi v. Varun Kapur2, Kanishka Aggarwal v. University of Delhi3, Jayshree Ravi & Anr. v. University of Delhi & Anr.4, Himani Sharma v. University of Delhi5 and Antariksha Anand v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University6.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Arpit Singh vs Ggsiu & Anr. on 13 October, 2011

6. Mr. Anil Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner is now already in the 3rd year and any direction of this Court against the petitioner will not only affect the academic career of the petitioner due to the loss of his precious year, but will also result in the wastage of one seat which cannot be filled at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had at no stage misrepresented the facts and had submitted his Mark Sheet along with the letter dated 14.9.2010 with the Academic Branch of respondent no.1 University and it is only thereafter that respondent had accepted the requisite fee and then later issued the Admit Card in favour of the petitioner. Learned WP(C) No.8765/2010 Page 8 of 23 counsel for the petitioner also argued that even respondent no.2 College had also accepted the fee and allowed the petitioner to attend the classes and to appear in the Internal Examination which were held from 28.10.2010 to 13.11.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner had ultimately passed the said examination of Engineering Drawing in which he appeared in the month of December, 2010 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner, in fact, had failed in the said subject of Second Semester. Learned counsel also argued that any compartmental/supplementary examination will be deemed to have been passed in the 1st Year only and the same cannot be treated to have been passed in a subsequent year. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the result of the compartment examination would relate back to the year in which he had appeared in the said examination at the time of the final examination along with the results. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the respondents should be estopped from taking any contrary position by cancelling the migration after having accepted the Mark Sheet of the petitioner, accepting his fee, issuing an Admit WP(C) No.8765/2010 Page 9 of 23 Card, allowing the petitioner to attend his classes in the 2nd Year and permitting him to appear in the Internal Examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No.400/2011 University of Delhi vs Varun Kapur decided on 4.5.2011. On the doctrine of promissory estoppel, being applicable to the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Shivam Chhabra vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 9 December, 2011

7. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Arpit Singh (supra), shows that the Division Bench examined various judgments on this issue and finally concurred with the decision of another Division Bench in the case of University of Delhi vs. Varun Kumar, reported as 179 (2011) DLT 549 and held that once the compartment examination was cleared, it could not have been said that the appellant therein had not satisfied the criteria laid down for migration, i.e., clearing of the exams of the previous years and hence he would be ineligible for migration. The other consideration that weighed with the Division Bench was the fact that if migration was not permitted, then the seat vacated by the appellant therein would go abegging.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - H Kohli - Full Document

Arpit Singh vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 24 November, 2011

10. The judgment dated 10.03.2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Varun Kapur (supra) had noticed that earlier also, Division Benches of this Court in judgment dated 07.09.1999 in LPA No.385/1999 titled Neha Kattyar Vs. CBSE and in Prashant Srivastava Vs. CBSE AIR 2001 Delhi 28 held that once the supplementary examination is passed, the result thereof would relate back to the first appearance in the examination and the effect of that would be to treate as if the candidate had passed the examination on the date when the result was declared initially. Both the said cases however were with respect to Class XII examination.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 Next