9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the legality of the demand for enhancement of tuition fees, the validity of the circular issued to parents, the injunction on collecting enhanced fees, and the jurisdiction to order a refund. Legality of Demand for Enhancement of Tuition Fees: The suit was filed for a declaration that the demand for enhancement of tuition fees, as per the circular issued to parents, was illegal and invalid. An injunction was granted to restrain the petitioner from collecting the enhanced fee for a specific period. However, the appeal against this injunction was dismissed, leading to a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court. Validity of Circular Issued to Parents: The circular dated 19.12.1989, which notified parents about the enhancement of tuition fees, was at the center of the dispute. The respondent sought a declaration that this circular was illegal and invalid. The subsequent legal proceedings revolved around the validity and enforceability of this circular. Injunction on Collecting Enhanced Fees: An injunction was granted to prevent the petitioner from collecting the enhanced fee from students for a specified period. This injunction was a subject matter of appeal and led to further legal actions, including the filing of an interlocutory application for a refund of excess amounts collected during the period covered by the injunction. Jurisdiction to Order a Refund: The key contention in the judgment was the jurisdiction of the trial judge to order a refund of excess amounts collected during the period of the injunction. The petitioner argued that the prayer for refund in the interlocutory application exceeded the scope of the suit, as there was no specific prayer for a consequential decree for refund in the original plaint. The High Court held that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to direct a refund when there was no such prayer in the suit itself. In conclusion, the Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the order directing the refund of excess amounts collected by the petitioner was set aside due to the lack of jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the importance of aligning interlocutory applications with the scope of the original suit and highlighted the limits of the court's authority in granting relief beyond the prayers sought in the pleadings.
|
