SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Delhi Public School Society - Appellant
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education - Respondent
LPA 114 of 2021, C.M. Appl. No. 10609 of 2021 and 10610 of 2021
Decided On : 22-03-2021




The court directed the respondent to decide the appellant's representations within eight weeks, clarifying no interference was warranted with the Single Judge's decision.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Public School Society v. Central Board of Secondary Education - Appeal - Challenging the order under WP

(C) 2552/2021 - Learned Single Judge permitted CBSE to await orders of ongoing litigation - No directions given to CBSE on representations against Aviral Education - Court clarifies that CBSE must decide representations within eight weeks. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Legal Proceedings - The court emphasized that the respondent must consider all options available in law before making a decision on representations. (Paras 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The appellant seeks action against Aviral following termination of a Joint Venture Agreement and challenges the Single Judge’s order that effectively advised delay in decision-making.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order calls for no interference, directing CBSE to make a decision within eight weeks.

Issues: Whether the Single Judge erred in permitting delays on the appellant's representations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the respondent must act on the representations within a specified period, maintaining the authority to make informed decisions.

Result: Appeal disposed of with directions to decide representations.

Table of Content
1. disputes over joint venture agreement termination. (Para 1 , 4)
2. contention regarding the learned single judge's order. (Para 2 , 3)
3. cbse's discretion in decision-making. (Para 5)
4. directed timeframe for cbse's decision. (Para 6)
5. disposal of appeal and application. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

C.M. Appl. No. 10610/2021 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 114/2021 & C.M. Appl. No. 10609/2021 (Stay)

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 26th February, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the appellant's writ petition being WP(C) 2552/2021. Appellant seeks a direction to the respondent to decide appellant's representations in a time bound manner.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Learned Single Judge while disposing of the appellant's petition erred in permitting the respondent, if the respondent so considers it appropriate, to await the orders of the Court in the litigation between the appellant and Aviral Education and Welfare Society [Aviral].

3. He emphasizes that the appellant had sought a limited prayer before the learned single judge i.e. the respondent to take necessary action on the appellant's letters/representations against Aviral. He points out that vide impugned order, the learned Single Judge has virtually decided the appellant's representations by advising the respondents to await orders in the litigation between the appellant and Aviral.

4. The relevant facts of the case are that there are disputes between the parties regarding the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement between them. The appellant had made representations to respondent-CBSE to take action against Aviral and to also de-affiliate the respondent's school i.e. DPS Sahibabad. Legal proceedings are now pending in this court, instituted by the parties against each other. The Trademark case is pending before a learned Single Judge of this Court.

5. It is clarified that the learned Single Judge has not given any directions to the respondent/CBSE and had merely mentioned that all options are available with CBSE. The option mentioned in the impugned order is certainly one of the options that is also available to the respondent CBSE in law. Needless to state CBSE will weigh all the pros and cons of each option and thereafter take an informed decision.

6. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. However, it is directed that the respondent/CBSE shall decide the appellant's representation, as directed by the learned Single Judge within eight weeks.

7. With the aforesaid directions, present appeal along with pending application stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top