PREM CHAND JAIN & ANR versus R. K. CHHABRA

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 13-02-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
PREM CHAND JAIN & ANR. 
v. 
R. K. CHHABRA 
February I 3, 1984 
{S. MJJRTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. V ARADARAJAN AND 
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.j 
883 
A 
B 
Unfrersity Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act III of 1956) Sections 2 (f). 22 
and.-23, Scope of-Right to confer degree and Right to have the word "University" 
associated to the name of an institution--Whether the wOrds ,."established" or 
"incorporated" in section 2 (h}. 22 and 23 also included a univ,rsity regiStered 
C 
1D1der the Companios Act of 1913? 
SectiOn 2 (f) of the University Commission Act; 1956 defines "a Univer-
sity" to ffiean : "a University established or incorporated by or under a 
Central Aet, a Provincial A.ct,. or a State Act, and inc1udeS any such insti-
tution, as may in consultation with the University concerned, be recognised 
by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf 
under this .Act''. 
Section 22 which empower the right to confer degrees 
and Section 23 which imposes the prohibition for use of the word "Uni-
versity" also ptovides that way. 
Penalties for contrave:riing the provi".' 
sions of sections 22 and 23 are provided under section 24 o.f the Act but 
the proviso to section 23 exempts any institution having a suffix "Univer-
sity"· before the commencement of the University Grants Commission Act, 
_ for a period of two years only to enable· it to take appropriate steps 
under the University Grants Con1mission Act. 
· 
Commercial University which was registered. under the companies 
Act of 1913 and before the coming into force of the University Commis-
sion Grants Act, 1956 and was doing useful service to the 
students 
D 
E 
community did not take any -steps· as required under the new Act 
even 
p 
after the lapse of the two years, and therefore, the appellant came to be 
prosecuted for the offences under sections 22 and 23. 
The 
appellants 
having lost their case includin·g in the High Court have come up- ·in · 
appeal by way of. special leave. 
Allowing the appeil 
iti. part and setting 
as~de the convictions and 
s~ntence of fine? the Coqrt 
G · 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
884 
SuPllmlE'coURT REPORTS 
(1985) 2 S.C.R. 
HELD I : I 
The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 did 
nOt intend to admit a commpany incorporated under the Companies Act 
into the definition of a ''University,' under section 2 (f), or for - the pur-
poses of Section 23. Several institutions stayaing themelves as cuniversi-
ties' had started awarding degrees and. diplomas which had no basis and 
could not be accepted. 
Keeping in view the mischief which wa~ sought 
to be eradicated and the _consideration which weighed with Parliament 
to introduce the prohibition in the Act, the Act recognises only those 
institutions established or incorpoq1.ted under special statutes of sovereign 
leg;slatures. (890D-E) 
1:2 
The definition of university and' the provisions in S.23 of the 
Act refer to Acts of the Cenlral, Provincial or the State legislatures by 
which one or more universities are established or incorporated and not 
to institutions incorporated under a general statute providing for incor-
poration. 
The words "established" or "incorporated'' referred to Act 
under which universities are established or incorporated. Several univer-
sities in this country have been either established or incorporated under 
special statutes, such as the Delhi University Act, the Banaras Hindu 
,University Act, the Allahabad University Act etc. 
In these cases, there is 
~ special Act e;ther of the Central or the _Provincial or· the State legis-
latures e_stablishing and incorporating the particular universitiCs. There is 
a)so another pattern-where urider one compondious Act several universities· 
efe either-established or incorporated-for instance, the Madhya Pradesh 
Universities Act 1913. [889a-E; P] 
1 :3 
Commercial University Ltd. when incorporated under the Com-
panies Act, therefore, did not satisfy the definition as also the provisions of 
section 23 of Act consequently the prosecution under section 23 was 
valid. [889H] 
Attorney General v. H.R.H. Augushtis [1957] I All 
E.R. 
49 
(HL); 
Bhagwan Prasad v. Secretary of State; AIR 1940 P.C. 
8_2, quoted with 
approval. 
2:1 
The-definition of University given in section 2 (f) or the prohi-
bition in section 23 of the Act are not ultra vires the Parliament on the 
ground that such provisionS are beyond its legislative competence. [ 8 91 F] 
2:2 
'Education including universities' was a State subjec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.