Rajasthali Law Institute vs Vivekananda Global University
2022 Latest Caselaw 4369 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 817/2022
1.     Rajasthali Law Institute, Proprietor Sh. M.k. Singh , B-
       100, University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015
2.     Sh. M.k. Singh, S/o Sh. Lal Singh, Proprietor Rajasthali
       Law Institute, B-100, University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur
       - 302015
3.     Rajasthali Vidhi Sanstahan (Registered Society), B-100,
       University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015, Through Its
       Chairman
4.     Sh. Randhir Singh, S/o Sh. Lal Singh, R/o V-100,
       University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.     Vivekananda Global University, Sector 36, NRI Road,
       Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303012 (India,) Through
       Registrar.
2.     Shri Omkar Bagaria, CEO Vivekananda Global University,
       Sector 36, NRI Road, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
       303012 (India)
3.     Bagaria      Educational        Trust,      Sector        36    NRI    Road,
       Jagatpura, Jaipur Rajasthan - 303012 (India) Through Its
       Chairman/trustee/managing Trustee
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.K. Singh appear in person Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.K. Daga, Adv. with Mr. Prashant Daga, Adv.

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shivangshu Naval, Adv.

Ms. Akanksha Naval, Adv.

Mr. Ayush Sharma, Adv.

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
                                 Judgment

ORDER RESERVED ON                           ::                         27.05.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                         ::                        01/07/2022




                                           (2 of 5)                   [CMA-817/2022]

1. The applicants have preferred this miscellaneous appeal

aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2022 whereby application of

the applicant filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation

Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for appointment of

a receiver was dismissed by the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur

Metropolitan-II.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the applicants

have filed an application under Section 9 of the Act stating therein

that an agreement/Memorandum of Understanding (for short

"MOU") was entered into between the applicants and the

respondent-University on 21.06.2017. It is pleaded in the

application that as per the MOU, the law courses were to be run

by the applicant and a sum of Rs.2.20 Crore has been paid to the

respondents in five yearly installments, but the respondents are

creating hindrance in complying with the said MOU. The applicants

have made the following prayers in the application filed before the

Court below for appointment of the receiver:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a receiver with the direction to administer:

i) thereby preserving the property being second floor of the Law Department of VGU, Jaipur in association with the applicants.

ii) thereby taking control of admission of the students which are guided by the terms and conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants.

iii) thereby collecting and depositing fees in the accounts of applicants for the admission of students which are guided by the terms & conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants

(3 of 5) [CMA-817/2022]

iv) thereby taking control of academics including running of the classes, all management relating thereto as per the terms & conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants

v) thereby not permitting any other Dean of the faculty other than appointed by the applicants (not permitting Ms. Manisha Chaudhary to interfere in the academic activity guided under the terms and condition of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017)

vi) thereby taking any other steps or ancillary steps which are required to be taken/adopted in carrying out the terms & conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants

vii) thereby permitting the applicants to give advertisement by way of hoardings in the newspaper or any other mode as being followed earlier as per the arrangements between the parties.

viii) any other steps which may be required and as may be directed by the Hon'ble Court which are to be taken/adopted in carrying out the terms and conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants."

3. The respondents in their reply to the application have stated

that they are governed by the Vivekananda Global University,

Jaipur Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the VIT Act") by

which the University was constituted. It is contended that as per

the constitution of the University, it is only the Registrar, who is

authorized to enter into any agreement/MOU. It is also contended

that even if, the MOU is considered to be a document executed

between the parties, in the MOU itself, it is mentioned that any

amount, which is paid to the University, has to be paid by cheque.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, who has appeared in person, has

submitted before the Court that the entire amount has been paid

to the respondents, which fact is emphatically denied by the

(4 of 5) [CMA-817/2022]

counsel for the respondents. This Court asked the applicants to

furnish a proof of deposit of the amount with the respondents, to

which Mr. M.K. Singh has produced some receipts given to the

students on account of fees. There is no document as such which

goes to show that the amount of Rs.2.20 Crore was paid or

deposited in the account of the University by the applicants.

4. We have considered the contentions raised by the counsel for

the parties and have perused the impugned order.

5. It is evident from the MOU that it is not signed by the

Registrar, who in accordance with the VIT Act, 2012 is the only

authority, which is authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of

the respondent-University. The respondent is a University

constituted by the State Legislature. As per Section 18 of the VIT

Act, 2012, all the contracts are required to be signed and all the

documents on record are required to be authenticated by the

Registrar on behalf of the University. Admittedly, the MOU is not

signed by the Registrar and as such, it cannot be said to be

binding on the University. Even if, we consider this MOU to be

signed by an authorised person, still as per the MOU, the amount

i.e. Rs.2.20 Crore, which was to be paid to the University, was to

be paid by cheque/s. The applicants have not been able to

produce any document to prima facie prove that the said amount

was deposited in the University fund by cheque. Only a sum of

Rs.5-10 lacks is found to be deposited by a cheque in the account

of the respondent - University.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Vikas Father Peter Versus

Administrator, Guardian Angel English Medium High School:

(2010) 15 SCC 705 has held that receiver should not be

(5 of 5) [CMA-817/2022]

appointed in any way by the Courts to interfere in the

management and administration of the school institution. In

Mannalal Khetal & Ors. Versus Kedar Nath Khetal & Ors.: 1977

(2) SCC 424 and Brij Mohan Parihar Versus M.P. State Road

Transport Corporation: 1987 (1) SCC 13, it was held by the

Supreme Court that if a contract is made contrary to the statutory

provisions, such contract cannot be given any effect as the same

cannot be said to be a valid contract.

7. We are also of the considered view that at this stage, the

MOU entered into between the parties cannot be said to be a valid

document, as it dehors the provisions of the VIT Act, 2012.

Further, even if we consider the said agreement to be a valid

agreement, there is no document on record to establish that the

amount of Rs.2.20 Crore was paid to the respondent- University

by the applicants, the applicants thus does not have any prima

facie case in their favour. In the facts and circumstances of the

present case, it is not appeared to the court to be just and

convenient to appoint receiver. Hence, the applicants have no

ground for appointment of a receiver and the Court below has not

committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the

applicants under Section 9 of the Act of 1996.

8. No ground is made out in the present miscellaneous appeal

and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

                                   (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J                                                   (PRAKASH GUPTA),J

                                   SUNIL SOLANKI /PS









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)