Delhi High Court – Orders
Shishir Chand S/O Prakash Chand R/O B … vs Teri University Plot No. 10 … on 10 March, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 176/2025, CM APPL. 68140/2025 (for production of document)
SHISHIR CHAND
S/o Prakash Chand
R/o B 191, 2nd Floor
Chhatarpur Enclave Ph II
New Delhi - 110074
Phone: 98109 19282
Email: [email protected] .....Appellant
Through: Mr Shishir Chand, Advocate.
versus
TERI UNIVERSITY
Plot No. 10
Institutional Area
Vasant Kunj
New Delhi - 110070
Phone: 01171800222
Email: [email protected]
Through Registrar .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anju Bhushan Gupta,
Mr. Sanyam Gupta and Mr. Aditya
Goel, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 10.03.2026
CM APPL. 68141/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
RSA 176/2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
3. The Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟)
has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment and decree
dated 22.09.2025 of the learned District Judge- 03, South District, Saket
District Courts, New Delhi, who has upheld the Order of the learned Civil
Judge dismissing the Suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant, for Recovery of Rs.
Rs.1,25,350/- along with the interest @18% p.a.
4. The Plaintiff/Appellant filed a Suit bearing No. CS SCJ
84177/2016 for Recovery of Rs.1,25,350/- along with the interest @18%
p.a. It was stated that he was a former army cadet of the prestigious National
Defence Academy (NDA), a Gold Medalist, head of Delhi chapter of an
NGO working to reform healthcare sector. He joined Teri
University/Respondent for a two-year MA degree in Public Policy and
Sustainable Development in July 2014 for the Academic Session of 2014-
2016. The experience of the Plaintiff /Appellant in the very first year of the
two-year course was extremely unpleasant and frustrating due to lack of
professionalism in conducting the course, false commitments made at the
time of joining and rapidly eroding „brand value‟ and credibility of the
Defendant during first half of 2015, which was evident through extremely
disturbing and embarrassing news in the mainstream media concerning Dr.
R. K. Pachauri, the Chancellor of the Defendant.
5. The Plaintiff decided to discontinue the course after the first year of
two-year MA programme, while availing the option of exiting the course
with a one-year diploma in public policy and sustainable development. He
strongly felt that the University reneged on its assurance and failed to honor
its commitment and promise made at the time of joining the course.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
6. The Plaintiff had signed the „Acceptance Offer‟ dated 27.06.2014 at
the time of joining the programme. A careful perusal of this „Acceptance
Offer‟ makes it clear that the University was under the commitment to
conduct a six weeks (45 days) summer semester, in the form of a project as
part of the second semester. The offer categorically stated that “This is a
two-year programme with regular classes split into two semesters in the first
year and a research phase in the second year.” It further stated that “In
addition to two semesters in the first year, there would be a summer
semester of six weeks.” Despite the best efforts of the Plaintiff, to facilitate
the Summer Project through constant communication with relevant
authorities, the University failed to organize the same. In the first semester,
the University had reneged on its commitment to organize a field visit,
which was advertised as part of pedagogical tool for MA-PPSD programme
at the time of joining.
7. The unprofessional conduct of the Defendant, was also evident
during the truncated second semester of the course, when Defendant lent its
campus to a film production unit from Mumbai, who shot a movie on a
fashion theme with skimpily dressed models rampaging down the corridors,
while lectures were being conducted in the most slip shod manner.
8. The Plaintiff wrote an email dated 31.05.2015 seeking partial refund
of the fee component of second semester for 45 days, on a pro-rated basis.
The Plaintiff stated that he had paid Rs 57,800/- for second semester through
DD dated 06.02.2015, in favour of the Registrar, Teri University for barely 4
months of classroom classes for a non-technical course. The Plaintiff has
paid approximately Rs.1,20,000/- for the first two semesters.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
9. The Plaintiff also sent a reminder email on 10.06.2015 to which, no
Reply was given by the Defendant. Plaintiff finally received a response
dated 08.07.2015 from the Respondent, after a lapse of one month and a
week, denying to refund the fees on the ground that no fee was charged for
summer semester, which the Plaintiff found unfair, deceptive and
misleading.
10. A rebuttal email was sent on the same day i.e. 08.07.2015 and
reminder emails on 29.07.2015 and 31.07.2015, to which no response was
received from the Respondent. Compelled by the circumstances, the Plaintiff
then wrote on 19.08.2015 to the Chancellor, Dr. R.K. Pachauri. However,
the Defendant refused to budge from its stated position. The Defendant kept
changing its stand on the reason for denying a refund. It first denied on the
pretext that the Summer Project was a „student find‟ and did not take
responsibility to make any arrangements.
11. On careful perusal of the matter and as an afterthought, Defendant
in its e-mail Reply dated 08.07.2015 alleged that there was no fee charged
for summer semester of 45 days and hence, it was under no obligation to
refund the fee.
12. It was asserted that if no fee had been charged for the summer
semester, why was the schedule of the six-week semester planned from
15.05.2015 to 30.06.2015, which is coterminous with the second semester
ending in June, 2015 and for which, the entire fee was charged. If the
summer semester was a free offering, why was it not planned outside the
ambit of second semester and why were classroom lectures in second
semester, curtailed to barely four months instead of five to six months. The
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
Plaintiff thus, sought refund of the fee of two semesters amounting to
Rs.1,25,350/- along with the interest @ 18% p.a.
13. The Suit was contested by the Defendant/Respondent, who in its
Written Statement, took the preliminary objection that it is a deemed
University recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the
Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. It is one
of the few Universities in India, awarded an “A” Grade by the National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). In the year 2006, the
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, had
asked the University, to commence a programmeme leading to a M.A. in
Public Policy and Sustainable Development for civil servants from all the
services of the Government of India.
14. This programme has been running successfully since then and
around 120 civil servants have undergone this programme successfully. The
DoPT had awarded this kind of a programme to only three Institutions in
India; the other two being Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore and
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon. Because of the success of the
programme, it has been renewed two times and continues to be offered by
the Defendant University.
15. In the year 2011, the programme was opened to self-sponsored
candidates, thus permitting Applicants other than civil servants, to join this
prestigious programmeme. In this programme, since the civil servants have a
built-in component of a summer semester ·at a University abroad, which is
paid for separately by the Government of India, the University has
intentionally left it optional for self-sponsored candidates, so that those who
would not like to pay for the foreign trip, could do a project in lieu of the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
trip. No fee was charged by the Defendant for the summer semester; whether
it was a foreign trip or a project in lieu, of the self-sponsored candidate.
16. It was stated that the Plaintiff had applied as a self-sponsored
candidate, to join the regular programme along with the civil servants of the
Government of India. He was selected for the Masters programme after due
selection process and was offered the admission in the programme
commencing from 21st July 2014. It was made clear that, as required by the
UGC Regulations and approved by the Academic Council of the University,
the MA programme is for two years with regular classes, is split into two
semesters in the first year and the research phase in the second year.
17. The Plaintiff opted not to go for a foreign trip, but to do a Project in
lieu thereof, vide email dated 14.05.2015. The Plaintiff after completing two
semesters, he did not do the Project and took a voluntary decision of not
pursuing the Master’s Course further and requested for granting him a
Diploma after completing the first year/two semester. On his request, the
Plaintiff was awarded Postgraduate Diploma in Public Policy, in July,
2015. After earning the postgraduate diploma, the Plaintiff cannot make
unfounded allegations and ask for refund of the fees. Hence, the present suit
is liable to be dismissed.
18. The Defendant is governed by the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
Universities) Regulations, 2016. As per Article 6.2(3) of the said
Regulation, provides that “If a student joins the Institution, and then leaves
it in mis-session then the entire fees collected shall be forfeited.” In view of
the UGC Regulations, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any refund or recovery
and the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
19. It was further asserted that the Suit was not maintainable, being
barred by res-judicata. The Plaintiff had filed a Consumer Complaint before
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New
Delhi, with the same prayer, which was dismissed vide Order dated
27.01.2016. The Plaintiff is misusing the process of law, by suppressing the
material facts.
20. Furthermore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule
11 CPC as it does not disclose any cause of action. Moreover, the Suit has
not been valued and no court fee has been paid.
21. On merits, all the allegations made in the Plaint, were denied and
same defence, as stated above, was taken.
22. The Plaintiff in the Replication, reaffirmed the assertions
made in the Plaint.
23. Issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge vide Order
dated 07.04.2021, which are as under:-
(i) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to decree of refund of
fee as claimed in the plaint? OPP
(ii) Whether Plaintiff is entitled the decree of damages
as claimed in the Plaint? OPP
(iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any,
and at what rate? OPP
(iv) Whether Suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable
being res-judicata and liable to be dismissed under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC? OPD
(v) Relief.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
24. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, who deposed on similar
lines as his assertions in the Plaint.
25. Defendant examined DW-1, Sh. Kamal Sharma, Registrar, Teri
University, who also deposed on similar lines as the defence taken in the
Written Statement.
26. The learned Civil Judge vide impugned Judgment dated
22.09.2025 concluded that though the Plaintiff was claiming that the
Defendant/University did not fulfil their commitment regarding the
organization of field trip and the Summer Project, but no concern had been
raised about the quality of education or teaching offered during the first and
second semesters; there were no allegations to suggest any deficiencies in
this regard. The Plaintiff‟s sole contention was that the classes were barely
held during the second semester due to a film shooting at the University,
however, Plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate these
claims. Also, no evidence was led in respect of the allegations against the
brand value of the University being eroded because of the disturbing and
embarrassing news of the Chancellor of the Defendant University.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff himself had voluntarily opted to drop out of the
course after completion of first year. Since no fees was charged for the
summer semester therefore, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The
Suit of the Plaintiff was consequently dismissed by the learned Civil
Judge vide Judgment dated 27.09.2023.
27. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Suit, the Appellant/Plaintiff
preferred an Appeal vide RCA DJ No. 60/2023 wherein all the
contentions were reagitated. However, the learned District Judge endorsed
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
the findings of the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the Appeal vide Order
dated 22.09.2025.
28. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Suit, as well as the Appeal, the
present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Section 151
CPC, has been filed. The grounds of challenge are that both the impugned
Orders have left substantial and mixed question of law and facts
unaddressed, particularly those relating to violation of three Sections of
UGC and have simply taken an adverse view about retrospective
applicability of UGC Regulations, without appreciating the law as laid
down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in SLP Civil No. 12591-
12596/2020 titled University of Kerala and Ors. vs. Merlin J.N. and Another
etc.
29. It has not been considered that the Respondent University published
a misleading Brochure/prospectus and had made false claims about six
weeks Summer Project, field visits for on-site experiential learning,
Seminars and Workshops, to dishonestly induce students to join the course
in contravention of UGC guidelines, as well as Section 2 (28) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
30. A disproportionate burden had been placed on the Appellant, to
prove the totally unauthorized, illegal and unlawful act of the Respondent, to
let out its campus for film shooting during teaching hours, without the
necessary sanction/approval, which led to disruption of class and truncation
the second semester. The photographs of film shooting and evidence
affidavit of a witness corroborating the allegations of film shooting, have
been erroneously repudiated by observing that it was having no evidentiary
value.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
31. The series of emails sent by the Appellant to the Registrar and
Chancellor of the Respondent upon cancellation of the summer semester,
has been given a totally different meaning and perspective. The UGC
curriculum framework for both UG and PG courses enjoins 90 working days
in a Semester and there is no distinction between the two courses qua the
number of classes to be conducted in a semester.
32. The impugned Judgment is fundamentally flawed and totally
misconceived and legally unsustainable, as it fails to address both
elementary and mixed questions of law and facts. Section 6.5 of UGC
Regulation, 2016 provides that every Institution deemed to be University,
shall publish before expiry of sixty days, prior to the date of the
commencement of admission to any programme. Each component of the fee,
deposits and other charges payable by the students admitted to such
institution. However, the Respondent had blatantly violated this Regulation
in respect of non-sponsored students, by failing to organize the six weeks
Summer Semester and the same amounted to misrepresentation and false
claim of manner/standard of instruction of a career course.
33. The Respondent/University nowhere in the Programme, Outline of
its Information Brochure/Prospects for MAPPSD Course (2014-16) or in the
tabular illustration of fee payment plan or the Offer Letter dated 27.06.2014,
stated that no fee would be charged for the Summer Semester of six weeks.
Moreover, the Summer Semester was arbitrarily and whimsically cancelled
by the Respondent University and no efforts was made to organize the same
at a later date, til the Appellant exited the course for a host of reasons
including cancellation of Summer Semester.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
34. Likewise, field visits for on-site experiential learning along with the
Seminars and Workshops, was an intrinsic part of the course curriculum as
indicated under the head “pedagogical tools” for the conduct of the
MAPPSD programme (2014-16) and advertised on the website of the
University. However, the same was not delivered as no field visit, no
Workshop or Seminar at the on-site, was conducted by the University, which
had been admitted by DW1 in his cross-examination on 09.11.2022.
35. The key factor that had influenced the Appellant‟s decision to join
the programme, was the opportunity to engage with government servants
with actual work situation on real time basis for on-site experiential training
and doing field projects under the supervision of an expert or qualified
person from the University, which never took place.
36. The Respondent failed to honour the UGC mandate given in Clause
6.5 which states that every institution deemed to be university shall publish a
prospectus 60 days prior to the date of commencement of admission to any
of its courses or programmes of study. The Respondent University failed to
state in advance that the six-weeks summer semester, field visits or on-site
seminars and workshops, had to be driven by the students themselves and
that no fee was charged for the same. The Respondent University simply
conducted classroom lectures, tutorials and lectures by visiting guests in the
first year of the two-year MA Programme. However, the University failed to
organize the six-weeks summer semester on a core project of choice of the
non-sponsored students.
37. Furthermore, the Campus was lent out illegally and unlawfully for
film shooting that disrupted the classes.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
38. Reference is placed on University of Kerala & Others vs. Merlin
J.N. & Another (2022), SLP (Civil) Nos. 12591-12596/2020, wherein the
Supreme Court of India held that while reinforcing that regulatory
frameworks must adapt to practical challenges, even in the context of
another UGC Regulation of the same year, i.e., 2016 relating to the
appointment of lecturers, such regulations may be applied retrospectively.
The Court further underscored the Judiciary‟s role in ensuring that
regulatory amendments are interpreted in light of legislative intent and
contextual necessity.
39. It is next contended that Clause 6.10 of the UGC Regulations, 2016
provides that where a student, after having been admitted to an Institution
for pursuing any course or programme of study, subsequently withdraws, the
Institution shall not refuse to refund such percentage of the fee deposited by
the student, as specified.The e-mails dated 10.06.2015 and 31.05.2015 of the
Appellant in this regard, have been misconstrued and have not been
interpreted in the right perspective.
40. The Appellant during the 15 days gap between the first two emails,
and subsequent to not getting any response to his first email dated
14.05.2015, sent to Mr. Debajit of the Respondent at Vasant Kunj campus
office for arranging the 45 days summer project, he had personally met Dr.
Ranjana Saikia and Mr. Amit Thakur of the Respondent at the
Administrative Office, Defence Colony. However, all three authorities of the
Respondent failed to respond to the Appellant to address his concern in
regard to six weeks summer semester. These facts are well documented in
email dated 31.05.2015 sent by the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant took
a decision to exit the programme with a PG Diploma, on the condition that
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
the University will refund the fee component for the six weeks Summer
Semester, on pro rata basis. The refund, however, has been outrightly
refused.
41. The email dated 10.06.2015 of the Appellant was triggered after the
Respondent made an attempt on telephone, to discourage the Appellant from
exiting the programme and to somehow get him enrolled for the second year
and pay an additional fee of Rs.1.25 Lakh for the third and fourth semesters,
in order to be eligible for a PG Diploma after one year. However, no efforts
were made by the Respondent University to arrange the Summer Project
until 19.08.2015, three months after it was scheduled, as is evident from the
various emails. Therefore, the email dated 10.06.2015 of the Appellant is not
only self-contradictory as observed by the learned District Judge, but a
careful perusal of its contents and the tone of the aforesaid email speaks for
itself and points to a condition imposed by the University for the grant of PG
Diploma.
42. The learned District Judge accepted the contention of the
Respondent University that no fee was charged for the Summer Semester,
but remained silent on the core issue of mis-representation and false claim
made by the Respondent qua the manner/standard of instruction, the
teaching methodology to be adopted and the ambiguous fee structure, which
was in direct contravention of Rule 6.5 of UGC Regulations.
43. It was further contended that Rule 6.11 of the UGC Regulations,
2016 provided as:
No institution deemed to be university shall, issue or publish-
(a) Any advertisement for inducing students for taking
admission in the institution, claiming to be recognizedThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
by the appropriate statutory authority where it is not
so recognized; or
(b) Any information, through advertisement or otherwise
in respect of its infrastructure or its academic facilities
or of its faculty or standard of instruction or academic
or research performance, which the institution, or
person authorized to issue such advertisement on
behalf of the institution knows to be false or not based
on facts or to be misleading.
44. It is claimed that the information Brochure amounted to misleading
advertisement and was also barred under Section 2 (28) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019.
45. The Respondent University acted unlawfully by letting out its
campus for film shooting by a film production unit from Mumbai, on the
theme of fashion without obtaining the necessary sanction or approval from
competent authority i.e. UGC. The learned District Judge failed to
appreciate that such film shooting led to truncation of the second semester
against the 18 weeks/90 days, as mandated by UGC curriculum. The
admissions made by DW-1 in his cross-examination dated 09.11.2022
established beyond reasonable doubt, the illegality of the Respondent‟s act
to let out the campus to film shooting, thereby totally disrupting and
vitiating the atmosphere of the University.
46. The learned District Judge in the impugned Order, has erroneously
observed that the Appellant had failed to furnish specific shooting schedule
i.e. time and duration of the same. The Appellant claimed that he had
already established the foundational facts linked to the illegal act of the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
Respondent. Furthermore, the Appellant had also filed the Affidavit of Mr.
Siriyal Patel, the second of three non-sponsored students in the batch of 18
students including 15 civil servants. Mr. Patel in his Evidence Affidavit
corroborated that the campus had been let for film shooting, when classes
were on and lectures were being delivered. The Appellant reasonably
discharged the burden under Section 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence
Act.
47. The impugned Order of learned District Judge had presumed that
the Respondent delivered 18 weeks of classes in the second semester, by
giving unreasonable and disproportionate credence to the
prospectus/information brochure of the Respondent University. The
conclusions have been arrived on totally incorrect assumption that the
programme outline as stated in the brochure/prospectus were honoured in
toto by the Respondent when on the face of the prospectus, the entire
summer semester six weeks as indicated therein was wiped out arbitrarily.
48. In the civil proceedings, the Plaintiff has to prove his claim by
preponderance of evidence to establish legal liability, which had been
successfully discharged by the Appellant. Moreover, the learned District
Judge has wrongly observed that the Appellant was only dissatisfied by the
cancellation of six weeks Summer Semester and later claimed the film
shooting to be the contributing factor, for exiting from the course as was
taken in his email trail between 14.05.2015 to 19.08.2015, which is
absolutely incorrect. In his email dated 08.07.2015, this aspect had been
mentioned.
49. Additionally, the Appellant had taken the plea of the reputation of
the institution being seriously hit due to adverse media reports of his
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
Chancellor, battling a sexual harassment charge during the pendency of the
Second Semester, which also was one of the contributing factors to his
decision to discontinue the course midstream. This factor has been down
played by the learned District Judge, who simply stated that “though some
kind of erosion of image may be there, but that cannot be made a reason to
claim deficiency in service.”
50. The learned District Judge has selectively quoted from the various
emails of the Appellant and replies of the Respondent marked as Ex.
PW1/Z. The first three emails of the Appellant dated 31.05.2015,
10.06.2015 and 02.07.2015, focused exclusively on the cancellation of
Summer Semester and once he decided to exit from the course, he laid down
the other reasons for doing so.
51. The learned District Judge has failed to consider four Judgments
passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, NCDRC and a District Consumer
Forum on mis-representation, mis-selling, false claims and fraudulent
admission to an educational institution on which, reliance had been placed
by the Appellant i.e. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr. vs.
Union of India W.P. (Civil) No.1001/2017, Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. vs.
Vishwa Budha Parishad & Ors., (2001) 2 CPJ 74 (NC), Modern School vs.
Union of India, (2004), and Zeba Salim vs. VLCC Healthcare Ltd
CC/365/2022.
52. The reference of the learned District to Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act, is misplaced. The Appellant claims that he had discharged his
primary burden under 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the learned
Trial Court was not satisfied with the evidence led by the Appellant, then
nothing prevented the learned Trial Court or the First Appellate Court, to
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
seek production of Attendance Register of the second Semester of MAPPSD
Batch 2014-2016 from the Respondent, in order to ascertain the true facts.
53. Hence, a prayer is made that the impugned Judgment dated
22.09.2025 of the learned District Judge, be set-aside and the Suit of the
Appellant for Recovery of fee in the sum of Rs.1,25,500/- for two
Semesters, be refunded along with the interest @18% and cost of
Rs.50,000/- incurred by the Appellant, in pursuing the course.
54. The Appellant filed his Supplementary Affidavit wherein questions
of law formulated by him were (i) whether the Regulations of UGC were
binding on the Respondent/University, a UGC deemed University?
(ii) Whether the University in terms of the Judgment of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in University of Kerela & Others
vs. Merlin J.N. & Another, (2022)?
(ii) Whether the Respondent University acted in violation of
6.5 of UGC Regulation, 2016 in its failure to proactively
disclose in its prospectus and offer letter the fee
component for each module?
(iii) Whether the Respondent University acted in abject
violation of Section 6.11 of UGC Regulation that bars the
deemed University from making misleading
advertisements?
(iv) Whether the Respondent University acted unlawfully
during the course of second semester by letting out its
campus for film shooting?
(v) Whether the Judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
and NCDRC have in respect of mis-representation and
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
mis-selling of career courses on the basis of false claims,
has been considered in the right perspective.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
55. The case of the Appellant was that he had taken an admission for
two-year MA Programme for the academic year 2014-2016, with the
Respondent University. He successfully attended two Semesters for which,
he had paid the fee Rs.1,25,000/-.
56. His only grievance, which arose subsequently was that as per the
Prospectus, he was to do a Summer Semester for 45 days, but the
Respondent company failed to show enough interest in arranging for this
summer programme, which was part of the first-year programme.
57. The Respondent had explained that essentially this programme had
been commenced for civil servants, who were entitled to do a semester in
the foreign country, on the cost of the Government. Because the
Plaintiff/Appellant was a self-sponsored candidate, an option was given to
the such candidates to do a Summer Semester programme of 45 days. The
Plaintiff/Appellant after attending the classes for one year, became
dissatisfied with the way in which this 45 days Semester Programme was
handled by the University, he therefore, got disgruntled and decided to not
pursue the second year of the programme.
58. The second ground which upset the Appellant was that the campus
of the University, had been let out for a film shooting programme which
according to him, not only truncated the classes of second semester, but also
vitiated the atmosphere of the University, as it was a fashion programme that
was shot with the participants roaming around in skimpy dresses.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
59. The third ground which further irritated the Respondent, was the
allegations of sexual harassment against the Chancellor of the University
which according to him, was published in the media and brought disrepute
to the University.
60. The learned Civil Judge, as well as, the learned District Judge, has
covered all these aspects in detail and has found that none of these three
grounds impacted on the completion of first year of the programme, so much
so the Appellant admittedly took the Diploma Degree for having completed
one year; rather than an MBA degree had he competed his two years of the
Programme. The Plaintiff/Appellant himself has benefitted by attending one
year programme and having taken the benefit and accepting the diploma, he
cannot now turn around to claim that he is entitled to refund of fee. Once, he
has acquired a benefit by way of Diploma by attending one year of the
programme, he cannot turn around to say that he is entitled to the refund of
the fee.
61. The grievance of the Appellant, commenced when he was told to
arrange for his own Summer-Semester programme of 45 days, which he
insisted should have been arranged by the Respondent. Dissatisfied, he
started claiming refund for this Summer-Semester programme of 45 days,
which was denied by the respondent on the ground that no fees had been
charged for this project. This irked the Appellant further, but he has not been
able to prove that there was any additional fee paid for this Summer
programme, as has been correctly held by the two Courts. This is essentially
a finding of fact and does not raise any question of Law.
62. It further emerges from his own pleadings that he, thereafter,
decided to quit, for which his other grounds of truncated classes of second
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
Semester and undermining of reputation of Institution, were cited to seek
refund of entire fees. However, as has been rightly observed by the two
Courts, there was no evidence to show that mere shooting in the campus,
impacted the course outline or that the Appellant suffered in any manner.
Rather, he opted to take the benefit by accepting one year Diploma.
63. The learned District Judge, as well as the Civil Judge and the
Appellate Court in their respective Judgments, have considered all these
aspects in detail and there is no infirmity in their findings. The substantial
questions, which have been formulated by the Appellant, are in fact
questions relating to re-appreciation of facts, which cannot be termed as
substantial question of law.
64. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed
and disposed of accordingly along with the pending Applications.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
MARCH 10, 2026/RS
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 20:45:39
