Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Dit University vs Deepak Chaudhary on 12 July, 2022 cites

Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Sinha on 4 September, 2009

"The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service. The claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules. The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion. The case decided by this Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) clearly lays down the law in this regard with which we find ourselves in full agreement with. Accordingly, the entire exercise of entertaining the complaint by the District Forum and the award of relief which has been approved by the National Commission do not conform to law and we, therefore, set aside the same."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 446 - M Katju - Full Document

Krishan Mohan Goyal vs St Mary'S Academy & Anr. on 17 February, 2017

10. Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment dated 17.12.2017 rendered in Revision Petition No. 3144 of 2016; Krishan Mohan Goyal Vs. St. Mary's Academy and another, has discussed the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159, in which it has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that a student is neither a consumer, nor the University is rendering any service, relying on the decision given in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra). Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 8 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur on 19 July, 2010

13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra); Maharshi Dayanand University (supra) and Anupama College of Engineering (supra), it is crystal clear that the appellant - University is neither "service provider", nor the respondent - complainant being a student is a 8 "consumer". Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter in question can not be brought before the Consumer Fora.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 556 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Anupama College Of Engineering vs Gulshan Kumar on 30 October, 2017

13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra); Maharshi Dayanand University (supra) and Anupama College of Engineering (supra), it is crystal clear that the appellant - University is neither "service provider", nor the respondent - complainant being a student is a 8 "consumer". Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter in question can not be brought before the Consumer Fora.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 43 - Full Document
1