Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (2.28 seconds)
Documents citing Modern School vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 April, 2004

Mount Carmel School Society And Anr vs Director Of Education And Ors. on 15 March, 2019

The enforcement of the "land clause", vis-à-vis the fee fixed by the School was, he submits, directly in issue in Modern School (supra). The regulatory power of the DoE, as confirmed in the said decision, according to him, would apply, equally, to minority schools, subject to the sole caveat that such application did not denude or affect the minority character of the school.
Delhi High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Action Committee Unaided Recognized ... vs Directorate Of Education And Anr on 15 March, 2019

The enforcement of the "land clause", vis-à-vis the fee fixed by the School was, he submits, directly in issue in Modern School (supra). The regulatory power of the DoE, as confirmed in the said decision, according to him, would apply, equally, to minority schools, subject to the sole caveat that such application did not denude or affect the minority character of the school.
Delhi High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 9 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Lakshmi Matriculation School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 May, 2012

148. As per the ratio of Modern School case, the minority educational institutions need to have reasonable surplus for its own development and also for development of cultural network of minority institutions. While for its own development the Minority Institutions are entitled to have 15% surplus, it should also be a member of cultural net work and enhance the educational stream. By being member of cultural net work for Corporate School Development Fund for deployment of resources for other needy school, it would be appropriate to allow another 10% surplus for Minority Educational Institutions run by Catholic Institutions.
Madras High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Education Promotion Society For India vs Union Of India on 3 February, 2022

In the case of Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583, referred in the judgment of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others, supra, four questions were formulated, out of which the first question was whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure. It was held that there could be no rigid fee structure and each institution must have freedom to fix its own fee structure after taking into account the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities for the benefit of the students. The institutions may generate surplus to be used for betterment and growth of that educational institution. The fee structure must be fixed keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities available, investment made, salaries paid to teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or betterment of institution, subject to two ____________ Page 54 of 74 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10088 of 2022 etc. restrictions, namely non-profiteering and non-charging of capitation fees. The Apex Court noticed that various statutes/regulations govern the fixation of fee and, therefore, the Court in the case cited above, directed the respective State Governments to set up a Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State to approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee which could be charged by the institute.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M N Bhandari - Full Document

Education Promotion Society For India vs Union Of India on 3 February, 2022

In the case of Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583, referred in the judgment of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others, supra, four questions were formulated, out of which the first question was whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure. It was held that there could be no rigid fee structure and each institution must have freedom to fix its own fee structure after taking into account the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities for the benefit of the students. The institutions may generate surplus to be used for betterment and growth of that educational institution. The fee structure must be fixed keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities available, investment made, salaries paid to teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or betterment of institution, subject to two restrictions, namely non-profiteering and non-charging of capitation fees. The Apex Court noticed that various statutes/regulations govern the fixation of fee and, therefore, the Court in the case cited ____________ Page 54 of 74 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10088 of 2022 etc. above, directed the respective State Governments to set up a Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State to approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee which could be charged by the institute.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M N Bhandari - Full Document

Lilawati Vidya Mandir Sr. Secondary ... vs Directorate Of Education on 7 February, 2024

22. The judgments discussed above have extensively elucidated the interplay between self-governance of private unaided educational institutions in their management and administration and the extent of governmental supervision that is permissible. However, this discussion would be deficient without reference to the verdict in Modern School case [Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583] which discusses the width and scope of DoE's jurisdiction in regulating the amount of fees charged by unaided schools. Therein, the Supreme Court emphasised that unaided schools have the right to a reasonable surplus for the growth and advancement of the institution and DoE has the authority to regulate the fees and other charges to prevent commercialisation of education. If a private unaided school is not involved in the commercialisation of education, it should be allowed to decide its fee structure, and its autonomy under the DSEA should be respected and upheld.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Bluebells School International ... vs Directorate Of Education on 7 February, 2024

22. The judgments discussed above have extensively elucidated the interplay between self-governance of private unaided educational institutions in their management and administration and the extent of governmental supervision that is permissible. However, this discussion would be deficient without reference to the verdict in Modern School case [Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583] which discusses the width and scope of DoE's jurisdiction in regulating the amount of fees charged by unaided schools. Therein, the Supreme Court emphasised that unaided schools have the right to a reasonable surplus for the growth and advancement of the institution and DoE has the authority to regulate the fees and other charges to prevent commercialisation of education. If a private unaided school is not involved in the commercialisation of education, it should be allowed to decide its fee structure, and its autonomy under the DSEA should be respected and upheld.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next