This Case Commentary is written by Sweety Kumari, a Fifth-year law student of ICFAI Law School, ICFAI University, Dehradun

Case Details:-

Court- Supreme Court of India

Equivalent Citation- 1976 AIR 376, 1976 SCR (2) 122, 1976 SCC (1) 311

Bench- H.R. Khanna, P.N. Bhagwati, and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali

Decided on- 17.11.1975

Parties-

Appellant- Shri Krishnan

Respondent- The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra

ABSTRACT-

In this case, the appellant was enrolled in 3 years LLB course in the respondent’s institution in the year 1971. As per the University’s guidelines, a student had the chance to clear the papers in which he had failed before completing the course. In Part I classes he failed in three subjects but he was promoted to Part II classes in 1972 for which the exams were scheduled in 1973. Since his attendance was short in Part I classes .The respondent informed the appellant about the cancellation of his candidature for admission to Part III classes. The respondent argued that the appellant had the knowledge about the fact of his low attendance but he did not draw this fact to the attention of the respondent university thus, he was fraudulent in his conduct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no fraud has been committed, he had just kept silence as to certain facts and that the respondent university had the opportunity to discover the truth with ordinary diligence.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant herein was a government school teacher. He got himself enrolled in the three-year LLB course offered by the respondent university for those who were employed. He took the LLB Part I classes in the year 1971. As per the University guidelines the students were given opportunity to clear any backlog paper before the completion of the course. In the year 1972, the appellant appeared in Part I exams but failed in three subjects out of six. But he was subsequently promoted to Part II classes for which exams were to be conducted in April 1973. When he applied to appear for backlog exams he was denied permission without any reason. The appellant then applied to the respondent for granting him provisional permission for appearing in the exams. The appellant was alleged to have committed the offences under IPC section 363,366 and 376 and henceforth was suspended by his employer. But later in August 1972 he was acquitted and his employer reinstated him at work. In May, 1973 the appellant was granted permission to appear for Part II exams on submission of undertaking that if he will not be granted permission by his employer to attend the classes, then he would then strictly abide to the University’s order. But after some time, the appellant was informed by the University regarding the cancellation of his admission to Part III classes since his attendance in Part I classes was less than was required. The appellant approached the High Court against the respondent university’s order through a writ of certiorari but his petition was rejected by the High Court.

The appellant then appealed to the Apex Court.

ISSUES

Whether fraud was committed by the appellant upon the respondent by his act of not disclosing his shortage of attendance in Part I classes?

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant argued that since he was permitted to appear in LL.B. Part II exams that were held in May, 1973, then after his taking the exams, the withdrawal of his candidature for any reason whatsoever by the respondent was inaccurate and absurd. The appellant referred to the provision of Clause 2(b) of the Kurukshetra University Calendar Vol. 1, Ordinance X. The said provision stated that the candidature of the student could only be withdrawn before the examination and not after that. Once, he is allowed to take the examination, then the candidature cannot be withdrawn no matter the decision to permit him the same was wrong and so subsequently he cannot be denied admission to further classes. This fact that whether he is eligible or not to appear in exams should have been looked into by the respondent before granting him permission to appear in the exams. Here the appellant had already appeared for the exams and so the withdrawal was wrong.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent argued that the appellant had less attendance than required as per the University guidelines in Part I class, and so he cannot be permitted to appear in Part II exams. Further the evening course was for employed candidates, so it was essential for them to get their superior’s permission to get admitted in the course and attending the classes. The appellant herein failed to get the permission. So, it was within the exercise of power of the respondent university to not allow him to appear for the Part II exams. Also, it was within the appellant’s knowledge that he had not fulfilled the criteria for attendance and yet he failed to bring this fact to the notice of the authorities when applying for the Part II exams. It was a fraudulent act on his part to conceal this material fact from the respondent and hence he was guilty of fraud.

JUDGEMENT

The appeal of the appellant was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After going into the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court quashed the order of the University to withdraw the candidature of the appellant. It was observed by the court that the respondent herein had failed to examine the form and to make sure that all the essential documents and all the essentials’ conditions to undergo this course has been followed by the appellant.

The Court further stated that the appellant was not liable for committing fraud as he had just kept silence as to certain facts. Further, the University could have discovered the truth by ordinary diligence and proper scrutiny. It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It was neither a case of suppression veri or suggestion falsi.”

CONCLUSION

The Court pointed out that for an act to be fraudulent there should be a false statement of fact by a person who himself does not believe the statement to be true . Further, there must be a wrongful intention i.e. an intention to deceive and induce the other party to enter into the contract.

Also, the Court stated that to constitute fraud; there should be a representation as to certain untrue facts. Mere silence is no fraud unless there is duty to speak, or his silence is, in itself, equivalence to speech. The candidate was short of attendance and did not mention this in the admission form for the examination. The University should have made proper scrutiny to discover the truth. It did not exhaust this opportunity.

The Court thus explained the ambit of mere silence is not fraud and unless the silence is itself equivalent to speech or there is duty to speak, the act is not fraud.

REFRENCES-

1. Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra 1976 AIR 376, 1976 SCR (2) 122, 1976 SCC (1) 311

2. Studocu, https://www.studocu.com/in/document/guru-gobind-singh-indraprastha-university/llb/krishnan-vs-the-kurukshetra-university-kurukshetrs-750061-com357382/11845056 , (Last visited September 7, 2024)