Back
SUPREME COURT
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J
Rustom Kerawalla Foundation – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Education – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions challenging fee structure and approvals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. concerns about scrutiny and accountability of school fees. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on jurisdiction and competence of the education department. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. claims of profiteering and mal-administration in school operations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. interpretation of educational aid and regulatory compliance for fees. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. recent case law impacts on educational fee regulations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. legal interpretation of expenditure and revenue generation in education. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. remand for reconsideration of fee structure and implications. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 9. (Para 24 , 25) |
1. Rustom Kerawalla Foundation (appellant in Civil Appeal No.3696 of 2017 and hereinafter referred to as the Foundation), runs a school named Vibgyor High School (appellant in Civil Appeal No.3698 of 2017 and hereinafter referred to as the School) in Mumbai. These appellants are questioning correctness of the common Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos.1925 of 2009 and 1919 of 2009 preferred by them. Along with these appeals, two t
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
