Dragging Child In Litigation & Claiming Credit For His Success Is Insult To Efforts: Delhi HC Denies Interim Relief To FIITJEE
|The Delhi High Court has denied interim relief to FIITJEE (Forum for Indian Institute of Technology Joint Entrance Examination) Limited in a plea filed by it against ALLEN Education and Management Services Pvt. Ltd. It said that dragging a child in litigation driven by commercial interest and claiming credit for his success is an insult to his efforts.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held, “The success of any student is the result of his hard labour and the infinite efforts he puts into the goal he has set to achieve. Therefore, dragging a child in a litigation driven by commercial interest between two competing coaching institutions claiming credit for the success of a child is an insult to his endless efforts and cannot be permitted. … In the instant case, there is nothing to show that a renowned institute like the plaintiff has to be apprehensive about which shall bring any kind of bad name to it.”
The Bench noted that the news articles reproduced are the interviews given by the student discussing his success story and not attributing his success to either of the parties i.e., FIITJEE and ALLEN.
Advocates Rajat Aneja and Ajay Saroya appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocates Archana Pathak Dave, Kumar Prashant, and Ankita Chaudhary Rathi appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner i.e., FIITJEE filed a plea seeking a decree declaring that one of the respondents i.e., a student had excelled in the Joint Entrance Examination (Main) 2023 (JEE Mains) due to the coaching imparted by it from May 2019 to October 2022. The said student was an IIT aspirant who opted for the ‘Four Year Classroom Program for IIT-JEE (Advanced)-Weekend Contact Classes’ of the FIITJEE and enrolled himself in November 2018 and then attended classes till September 2022, thereafter stopping the same post-October 2022.
In January 2023, the results of JEE (Mains), 2023 were declared for the Session I exam and the petitioner was thereafter, aggrieved by the fact that the respondents were claiming credit for the result of the said student. In November 2020, the petitioner served a notice upon the respondents regarding the poaching of students from its institute and asking them to restrain themselves from indulging in unethical and illegal practices of claiming the name of the students of its institute for their own advertisement and benefit. Hence, the petitioner was before the court seeking interim relief.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “It is apparent that the entire case of the plaintiff in the instant application is based on apprehension that the defendant no. 1 to 5 will claim the credit of the training actually imparted by the plaintiff. Admittedly, defendant no. 6 is no longer enrolled with the plaintiff. In fact, he ceased to be their Student prior to even appearing for the JEE Mains on his own accord and, being a minor, with the consent of his parents.”
The Court further observed that any interview or statement that may be given by the student qua his examinations or the results thereto will not include the history of his studies and will not in any manner prejudice, injure, or affect the petitioner irreparably.
“… this Court does not find any of the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff strong enough to satisfy that an irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff in case the injunction is not granted. The institutions like the plaintiff intake thousands of students every year who appear for competitive examinations and often the students may decide to drop or discontinue with the coaching. … There is no reason strong enough in favour of the plaintiff which would invite the grant of an injunction by Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, when the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the tests settled in law”, said the Court.
The Court also noted that the counsel for the petitioner failed to show that the balance of inconvenience lies in the favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
“The institute is only apprehensive that certain time that the student has spent in with them will not be rewarded by way of commercial accreditation and validation, which in my considered view does not at all warrant a relief from temporary injunction as stipulated under Order XXXIX of the CPC. … this Court is of the view that at this stage no relief accrues to the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC as there is only an apprehension that the defendants may claim credit without any substantial and strong case presented on behalf of the plaintiff”, held the Court.
Accordingly, the Court denied interim relief to the petitioner.
Cause Title- FIITJEE Limited v. ALLEN Education and Management Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:4157)