Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 674 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur on 19 July, 2010

Sastra University vs The District Consumer Disputes ... on 22 June, 2011

“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159] wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a Signature Not Verified commodity. Educational institutions are not providing Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2017.11.02 any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, 16:56:02 IST Reason: fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fiit Jee Ltd. vs Harsh Vardhan Sikka on 27 April, 2022

"10.        It was specifically said that the Board was not carrying any commercial, professional or service oriented activity and as such, consumer complaint was not maintainable, in such like cases before the Consumer Fora. However, it was also observed in later part of the judgment that ratio of a judgment is not mechanically to be applied to other case, without analysing the context in which observations were made by the Court in a given judgment. Same was the situation in the case of  Maharshi Dayanand University (supra). In that case also, there was a dispute between the Authorities and student qua grant of B.Ed. degree to her.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deepak Tyagi & 14 Ors. vs Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education ... on 20 January, 2020

34.     However, at this juncture, it is significant to note here that the ratio in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), P.T. Koshy &  Anr. (Supra), Prof. K. K. Ramachandran (Supra) and Anupama College of Engineering (Supra) does not address to the aspect of what comprises 'Core Education' and whether all activities related to Education/ Educational institutions would be excluded from the purview of the Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 31 - Cited by 74 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Frankfinn Institute Of Air Hostess ... vs Ritika Rana on 10 May, 2022

"10.        It was specifically said that the Board was not carrying any commercial, professional or service oriented activity and as such, consumer complaint was not maintainable, in such like cases before the Consumer Fora. However, it was also observed in later part of the judgment that ratio of a judgment is not mechanically to be applied to other case, without analysing the context in which observations were made by the Court in a given judgment. Same was the situation in the case of  Maharshi Dayanand University (supra). In that case also, there was a dispute between the Authorities and student qua grant of B.Ed. degree to her.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fiitjee Ltd. vs Ajai Patel on 29 April, 2022

"10.        It was specifically said that the Board was not carrying any commercial, professional or service oriented activity and as such, consumer complaint was not maintainable, in such like cases before the Consumer Fora. However, it was also observed in later part of the judgment that ratio of a judgment is not mechanically to be applied to other case, without analysing the context in which observations were made by the Court in a given judgment. Same was the situation in the case of  Maharshi Dayanand University (supra). In that case also, there was a dispute between the Authorities and student qua grant of B.Ed. degree to her.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sarguja University vs Amit Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. on 4 October, 2018

In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.697 of 2014, titled Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) v. Mukul Srivastava, dated 17.1.2014, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also referred to the judgments reported in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha (supra), Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (supra) and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director Health Services, Haryana & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 22 (SC) = 2013 (10) SCC 136 holding that the student, under such circumstances, is not a 'consumer'.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next