Valmiki J. Mehta, J. - (1.) C.M. Appl. No. 2469/2019 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No. 44/2019 and C.M. Appl. No. 2468/2019 (for stay)
(2.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 24.09.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/ student for a sum of Rs. 6,88,600/- along with interest at 9% per annum on account of appellant/defendant/institute closing midway in the two-year course of Higher National Diploma (hereinafter "HND Programme?) for EDEXCEL International and in this course, the respondent/plaintiff had completed one year of studies.
(3.) Xxx xxx xxx 3(i). The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that he was originally enrolled with the B.Sc. course with appellant/defendant/institute but thereafter the respondent/plaintiff was allowed to change his course to the two-year course of HND Programme for EDEXCEL International, which was recognized by British Council, India and Government of U.K. For change of the course, the respondent/plaintiff completed all formalities as required by the appellant's/defendant's/institute?s Admission Letter dated 11.11.2011. The HND Programme was to be conducted in the main campus of the appellant/defendant/institute. The respondent/ plaintiff deposited fees for the course on 19.01.2012. The earlier deposited fees of Rs. 75,000/- for the B.Sc. course was adjusted by the appellant/defendant/institute as fees for the new HND Programme. The appellant/defendant/institute, thereafter, shifted to a new address which came to be known as Centre for Advance Computing (COAC). When the respondent/plaintiff returned from his Dussehra holidays on 26.10.2012, it was found that the appellant/defendant/institute was shutting down the institute by November, 2012. The appellant/defendant/institute expressed its willingness to refund the course fees and the amount spent on rented accommodation and instead offered an alternative course which was not identical to the HND Programme in another institute such as Frame Boxx and C.G. Mantra, however, the respondent/plaintiff could not join the alternative course because the alternative course did not offer the same subjects and syllabus which was taught in the HND Programme and the same was also recognized by the British Council, India. 3(ii). On account of the appellant/defendant/institute being shut down in November, 2012, the respondent/plaintiff returned to his home at Kanpur. Surprisingly, however, on 22.08.2013 the respondent/plaintiff was telephonically called to submit an assignment in Delhi without the appellant/defendant/institute having imparted the necessary classes for the HND Programme. Ultimately, the respondent/plaintiff issued a Legal Notice dated 24.12.2014 demanding a sum of Rs. 7,83,180/- along with interest, and as this demand was not complied with, the subject suit was filed.;