JUDGMENT 1. The applicants have preferred this miscellaneous appeal aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2022 whereby application of the applicant filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for appointment of a receiver was dismissed by the Commercial Court No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the applicants have filed an application under Section 9 of the Act stating therein that an agreement/Memorandum of Understanding (for short "MOU") was entered into between the applicants and the respondent-University on 21.06.2017. It is pleaded in the application that as per the MOU, the law courses were to be run by the applicant and a sum of Rs. 2.20 Crore has been paid to the respondents in five yearly installments, but the respondents are creating hindrance in complying with the said MOU. The applicants have made the following prayers in the application filed before the Court below for appointment of the receiver:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a receiver with the direction to administer: i) thereby preserving the property being second floor of the Law Department of VGU, Jaipur in association with the applicants. ii) thereby taking control of admission of the students which are guided by the terms and conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants. iii) thereby collecting and depositing fees in the accounts of applicants for the admission of students which are guided by the terms & conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants iv) thereby taking control of academics including running of the classes, all management relating thereto as per the terms & conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants v) thereby not permitting any other Dean of the faculty other than appointed by the applicants (not permitting Ms. Manisha Chaudhary to interfere in the academic activity guided under the terms and condition of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017) vi) thereby taking any other steps or ancillary steps which are required to be taken/adopted in carrying out the terms & conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants vii) thereby permitting the applicants to give advertisement by way of hoardings in the newspaper or any other mode as being followed earlier as per the arrangements between the parties. viii) any other steps which may be required and as may be directed by the Hon'ble Court which are to be taken/adopted in carrying out the terms and conditions of the agreement/MOU dated 21.06.2017 in association with the applicants." 3. The respondents in their reply to the application have stated that they are governed by the Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the VIT Act") by which the University was constituted. It is contended that as per the constitution of the University, it is only the Registrar, who is authorized to enter into any agreement/MOU. It is also contended that even if, the MOU is considered to be a document executed between the parties, in the MOU itself, it is mentioned that any amount, which is paid to the University, has to be paid by cheque. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, who has appeared in person, has submitted before the Court that the entire amount has been paid to the respondents, which fact is emphatically denied by the counsel for the respondents. This Court asked the applicants to furnish a proof of deposit of the amount with the respondents, to which Mr. M.K. Singh has produced some receipts given to the students on account of fees. There is no document as such which goes to show that the amount of Rs. 2.20 Crore was paid or deposited in the account of the University by the applicants. 4. We have considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. 5. It is evident from the MOU that it is not signed by the Registrar, who in accordance with the VIT Act, 2012 is the only authority, which is authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the respondent-University. The respondent is a University constituted by the State Legislature. 5. It is evident from the MOU that it is not signed by the Registrar, who in accordance with the VIT Act, 2012 is the only authority, which is authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the respondent-University. The respondent is a University constituted by the State Legislature. As per Section 18 of the VIT Act, 2012, all the contracts are required to be signed and all the documents on record are required to be authenticated by the Registrar on behalf of the University. Admittedly, the MOU is not signed by the Registrar and as such, it cannot be said to be binding on the University. Even if, we consider this MOU to be signed by an authorised person, still as per the MOU, the amount i.e. Rs. 2.20 Crore, which was to be paid to the University, was to be paid by cheque/s. The applicants have not been able to produce any document to prima facie prove that the said amount was deposited in the University fund by cheque. Only a sum of Rs. 5-10 lacks is found to be deposited by a cheque in the account of the respondent - University. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Vikas Father Peter v. Administrator, Guardian Angel English Medium High School: (2010) 15 SCC 705 has held that receiver should not be appointed in any way by the Courts to interfere in the management and administration of the school institution. In Mannalal Khetal & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Khetal & Ors. 1977 (2) SCC 424 and Brij Mohan Parihar v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation 1987 (1) SCC 13 , it was held by the Supreme Court that if a contract is made contrary to the statutory provisions, such contract cannot be given any effect as the same cannot be said to be a valid contract. 7. We are also of the considered view that at this stage, the MOU entered into between the parties cannot be said to be a valid document, as it dehors the provisions of the VIT Act, 2012. Further, even if we consider the said agreement to be a valid agreement, there is no document on record to establish that the amount of Rs. 2.20 Crore was paid to the respondent- University by the applicants, the applicants thus does not have any prima facie case in their favour. Further, even if we consider the said agreement to be a valid agreement, there is no document on record to establish that the amount of Rs. 2.20 Crore was paid to the respondent- University by the applicants, the applicants thus does not have any prima facie case in their favour. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not appeared to the court to be just and convenient to appoint receiver. Hence, the applicants have no ground for appointment of a receiver and the Court below has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the applicants under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. 8. No ground is made out in the present miscellaneous appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.