Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
INDER JIT SINGH, SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
FIITJEE Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shlok Agarwal alias Shlok Vijay Agarwal – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member—Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the respondent/the complainant/ Shlok Agarwal @ Shlok Vijay Agarwal (hereinafter referred as ‘the respondent’) through mother being enticed by the attractive promises made by the opposite parties/the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioners’) had appeared in the exam conducted named as ‘FIIT JEE Talent Reward Exam (FTRE)’. The respondent after being allured by the attractive offer of 35% waiver of tuition fee on taking admission in the institute of petitioners for pursuing admission in 1st year of Intermediate with the subjects Mathematics, Physics & Chemistry (M.P.C.) from the Intermediate Board of State of Telangana. The respondent paid upfront fees for the entire course of two years i.e. for the academic years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 much prior to the commencement of course with effect from 01.06.2017. The petitioners on 25.12.2016 conducted an exam for admission in their college only to extract money from the aspirant student and as adopted unfair trade practices by charging exorbitant fees. The petitioners demanded Rs.4,26,826/- from the r
Forfeiture of entire fees paid by student on withdrawal from course within a fortnight of joining is unjustified but amounts to unjust enrichment.
Educational institutions do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for post-admission disputes.
The Court ruled that educational institutions and their incidental activities are not subject to Consumer Protection Act provisions, affirming the need for liberalism in condoning delays for appeals.
(1) Educational matters – Educational matters do not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(2) Education institutions – Educational institutions and the services they provide a....
Education services offered by private institutes do not fall under consumer protections, as the evaluation process and resulting grievances show no deficiency in services rendered.
Educational institutions do not qualify as service providers under the Consumer Protection Act, rendering complaints against them unmaintainable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article