SONY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Controversy:

(2.) The learned counsel for Sony has submitted that initially Sony entered into the Ext.P1 MOU with the 5th respondent University and established the Centre, as the activity undertaken by the University was valid then. Later, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Prof. Yashpal and Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2005 SC 2026, all the Universities offering distance education were directed to close their centres beyond their territorial jurisdiction, submits the learned counsel. Acting on the Supreme Court's directive, the UGC issued guidelines to all the Universities. The 5th respondent University, too, complied with those guidelines and issued Ext.P2 notification, stopping further admissions from 30.8.2014. In other words, it undertook to complete the courses of those students who had secured admission before that date.

(3.) The learned counsel has further submitted that Ext.P2 notification did not interdict the earlier admissions. So, initially, the University permitted examinations for those students admitted before 30.8.2014. And it has led to a lot of litigation.