Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)
Mr Blesson Reji vs The Principal on 1 March, 2017 cites

Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003

6. The issue involved in this case, whether the respondents are justified in demanding the fees when the petitioner-student left the college in the midstream is no more res-integra. The Division Bench of this court while dealing the case of Miss. Smruthy B.S. (supra), placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and other reported in (2003)6 SCC 697 has held that the Hon'ble Supreme -7- Court in the said judgment, never ruled that the college cannot demand the student who leaves in the midstream, for payment of balance fees of the whole course. In Miss.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 767 - V N Khare - Full Document

Miss Smruthy B S vs D A Pandu Memorial on 18 March, 2014

4. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri. G.S.Sharath Gowda appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this court in Miss. Smruthy B.S. Vs. D.A.Pandu Memorial and other in W.P. No.13792/2009 dated 18.03.2014 to contend that the petitioner-student has left B.E. course in the midstream. The institution has not collected course fees from the petitioner and never anticipated that the petitioner may leave the course in the midstream. In view of the petitioner leaving the course in the midstream of the academic year, the seat became vacant, for which the institution has to bear the financial loss. The conduct of the petitioner has not only caused loss of revenue to the respondent institution but also deprived the seat for another meritorious student who was interested to become an engineer. Hence, the -6- respondents are justified in claiming the course fees to return the documents/certificates. However, in view of the interim order passed by this court, the respondents have returned the documents/certificates to the petitioner subject to the result of the writ petition. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner not to demand the course fee is not sustainable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Mr.Jibin George vs The Principal on 28 October, 2014

7. At this juncture, this argument of the learned counsel cannot be countenanced for the reason that irrespective of the fact that the eligibility or ineligibility of the student to continue the studies, leaving the course in the midstream is an admitted fact. Undisputedly, the petitioner has joined diploma course leaving B.E. course in the midstream. He has deprived another meritorious student to become an engineer besides causing loss of revenue to the respondents which is manifest from his conduct. Hence, this court is -9- of the considered opinion that the respondents demanding the course fee from the petitioner cannot be found fault with. Further, the judgment of the Division Bench in Miss. Smruthy B.S. was not brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench of this court in Mr. Jibin George case. Moreover, the Division Bench judgment is binding on this court. Hence, the dictum pronounced by the Division Bench is applied to the facts of the present case. The notification of the UGC referred to by the petitioner though indicates that retaining of the certificates of the student by the institution is not permissible, but the same does not refer to the demanding of the course fee.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - A S Bopanna - Full Document
1