New Delhi: Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) and its Dean Arindam Chaudhuri have been restrained by the Delhi High Court from describing courses conducted by it as 'MBA, BBA, Management Course, Management School, Business School or B-School' as they are not recognised.
The court also imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on IIPM for violating its earlier undertaking given to the court that it will not give misleading advertisement or information about the courses run by it.
"The respondent No.4 IIPM and its management/officials, including its Dean Arindam Chaudhuri, are restrained with immediate effect from using the word 'MBA, BBA, Management Course, Management School, Business School or B-School' in relation to the courses/programmes being conducted by them or in relation to the representations if any made to the public at large and/or to their prospective clients, customers or students," the court said.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice RS Endlaw, in its 20-page verdict, also took note of "misguiding" advertisement of IIPM, which is not recognised by the UGC and the AICTE, that it is recognised by foreign Management Institute, IMI, Belgium.
"A visit by us on September 25, 2014 to the website www.timi.edu of International Management Institute, Brussels, Belgium has also disclosed the same to be nothing different from 'The Global initiative of Asia's leading business school -IIPM' and having been set up by the same Arindam Chaudhuri and his father Malay Chaudhuri.
"The IIPM on the other hand, in its advertisements, is portraying as if it has recognition, if not in India from UGC or AICTE, from a foreign Management Institute namely IMI, Belgium, and which advertisements have potential of misguiding young minds who have a craze for foreign education ...and cleverly concealing from them that IMI, Belgium, is nothing but an alter ego or another face of IIPM."
The court also asked IIPM and its officials, including the Dean, to "upload and display prominently on the website" of the institute the judgement to ensure that students come to know about its status.
The court also asked the institute to "prominently display" on its website that it is not recognised by any statutory body.
It also asked IIPM to disclose the status of the foreign university or institution and the degree in the country of its origin.
The directions came while disposing of a PIL that had sought directions to the Centre, University Grants Commission (UGC) and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to take actions against IIPM for misleading people that it offers courses like 'MBA and BBA'.
The court took note of violation of earlier undertaking by IIPM that it will not be giving wrong information to the media and others about the courses run by it.
"The respondent No.4 IIPM, its concerned officials, including its Dean Arindam Chaudhuri, are accordingly liable to be proceeded against and punished for such breach of statements in the nature of undertaking given to this court.
"However, considering that the said statement is of December 2, 2013 and admission only for the year 2014 would be taking place/ would have taken place thereafter, we take a lenient view of the matter...," it said.
The court also said that its view will not "relieve IIPM" from future liability if any other person moves against it for having been misled in the past.
Disposing of the PIL filed by one B Mahesh Sharma, it referred to a Supreme Court verdict and said that no institution can run MBA, management course without approval of AICTE.
"IIPM is clearly advertising/running MBA and BBA courses. The BBA course shall also fall in the category of management course which has been prohibited. The respondent No.4 IIPM admittedly does not have the AICTE approval. It is, thus, not entitled to run a BBA/MBA course or to advertise itself as conducting any course/programme in management or to advertise itself as a management school or a business school or a B-School," it said.
The bench took note of admissions made by the counsel on behalf of IIPM and said it is not entitled to "confer any degree" and hence, its prospectus, showing itself as conferring a degree, is "evidently false and misleading".
"IIPM is not entitled to represent so in any manner directly or indirectly. Further, in view of the admission that the respondent No.4 IIPM is not recognized by any statutory body/authority, the respondent No.4 IIPM also is not entitled to directly or indirectly in any manner convey that it is so recognized.
"Similarly, with respect to foreign degrees/institutions also, the respondent No.4 IIPM is required to make a clean breast of the status and to vividly and clearly inform its prospective customers/clients/students thereof, including the status of the said foreign institutions and/or its degree or certificate in the country of its origin and/or to which it belongs," the court said.
Comments
0 comment