In the case, Fitjee Limited v Allen Education and Management Services Private Limited Fitjee Limited filed a lawsuit in an effort to get a declaration that the defendant had performed exceptionally well in the Joint Entrance Examination (Main) 2023 as a result of the coaching provided by the plaintiff from May 2019 to October 2022.
The petitioner, FIITJEE Limited, is a business that was established in accordance with the Companies Act of 1956. It operates its coaching facilities under the name and logo of “ALLEN Career Institute.”Defendant hopes to attend the IIT. The defendant chose the four-year classroom programme for IIT-JEE (Advanced)-weekend contact classes, according to the plaintiff’s case. The complainant passed the JEE (Mains), 2023 Session I test when the results were announced in January 2023. The present lawsuit was brought about as a result of the plaintiff’s resentment over the defendants’ claim of credit for the plaintiff’s success.
Analysis of court decision
The Delhi High Court’s Single Judge Bench, led by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, denies the plaintiff’s request for relief since there is only a remote possibility that the defendants will receive credit without any convincing evidence being put out on the plaintiff’s behalf.
The Court noted that in order to satisfy the three well-established requirements of a strong prima facie, a balance of convenience in favour of the applicant, and irreparable injury likely to be caused to him, the Court must be satisfied with a claim for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court additionally remarked that the plaintiff’s entire argument in the current application is predicated on the worry that the defendant will take credit for the instruction that the plaintiff provided. Indeed, the defendant is no longer a student of the plaintiff. He really stopped being their student before even registering for the JEE Mains, acting on his initiative and, because he was a juvenile, with his parent’s permission. As a result, any interview or remark he may give regarding his exams or their results won’t in any way mention his academic background and won’t negatively or irreversibly harm the plaintiff. The court also highlighted that organisations like the plaintiff annually enrol thousands of students who take competitive exams, and frequently those individuals decide to leave or stop receiving coaching. When the plaintiff has fallen short of the legal requirements, there is no compelling reason in the plaintiff’s favour that would prompt the Court to award an injunction pursuant to Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
The Court reached the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest that a prestigious institute like the plaintiff’s should be concerned about anything that would damage its reputation. The institute’s only worry is that some of the student’s time with them won’t be recognised through commercial accreditation and validation, which the court does not believe justifies a release from the temporary injunction required under Order XXXIX of the CPC. As a result, the Court determined that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC because there hasn’t been any convincing evidence submitted on the plaintiff’s behalf, and all that has been raised is the possibility that the defendants might claim the credit.