Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Section 4 in Annamalai University Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003
45. After the judgment in TMA Pai Foundation, various State Governments and the educational institutions understood the majority judgment in different perspectives and different statutes were enacted and and regulations were framed by different State Governments, resulting in litigations in several Courts. Therefore, to clarify the doubts and anomalies, a Bench of five Judges was constituted in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC 697].
S.Arulselvan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 February, 2006
In S.Arulselvan v. Government of Tamil Nadu [2006 WLR 165], this Court has held that even the Court does not have the power to amend or alter or add something to the prospectus. At the same time, judicial review can be made only in cases where the prospectus contains certain clauses contrary to the Rules.
Section 3 in Annamalai University Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Midhuna Nathan And Etc. Etc. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 1995
In Midhuna Nathan v. State of Tamil Nadu [1995 WLR 851], a Division Bench of this Court held that the rules and norms contained in a prospectus are not only binding on the Selection Committee and the Authorities, but also binding on the students.
Cochin University Of Science & ... vs Thomas P. John & Ors on 6 May, 2008
(vii) Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Thomas P.John [(2008) 8 SCC 82];
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002
It thus needs to be emphasized that as per the majority judgment imparting of education is essentially charitable in nature. Thus the surplus/profit that can be generated must be only for the benefit/use of that educational institution. Profits/surplus cannot be diverted for any other use or purpose and cannot be used for personal gain or for any other business or enterprise. As, at present, mere are statutes/regulations which govern the fixation of fees and as this Court has not yet considered the validity of those statutes/regulations, we direct that in order to give effect to the judgment in TMA PAI's case the respective State Governments concerned authority shall set up, in each State, a committee headed by a retired High Court judge who shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State. The other member, who shall be nominated by the Judge, should be a Chartered Accountant of repute. A representative of the Medical Council of India (in short 'MCI') or the All India Council for Technical Education (in short 'AICTE'), depending on the type of institution, shall also be a member. The Secretary of the State Government in charge of Medical Education or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall be a member and Secretary of the Committee. The Committee should be free to nominate/co-opt another independent person of repute, so that the total number of members of the Committee shall not exceed five. Each educational Institute must place before this Committee, well in advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure. Along with the proposed fee structure all relevant documents and books of accounts must also be produced before the committee for their scrutiny. The Committee shall then decide whether the fees proposed by that institute are justified and are not profiteering or charging capitation fee. The Committee will be at liberty to approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee which can be charged by the institute. The fee fixed by the committee shall be binding for a period of three years, at the end of which period the institute would be at liberty to apply for
revision. Once fees are fixed by the Committee, the institute cannot charge either directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. If any other amount is charged, under any other head or guise e.g. donations the same would amount to charging of capitation fee. The Governments/appropriate authorities should consider framing appropriate regulations, if not already, framed, whereunder if it is found that an institution is charging capitation fees or profiteering that institution can be appropriately penalised and also face the prospect of losing its recognition/affiliation."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 August, 2005
(ii) P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537];