{"id":124977,"date":"2007-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007"},"modified":"2015-09-06T20:03:46","modified_gmt":"2015-09-06T14:33:46","slug":"u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation … vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation … vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5279 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nU.P. Co-op Spg. Mills Federation Limited and another\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM PRATAP YADAV & ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/10\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. Sema & Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Altamas Kabir,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by way of special leave is directed
\nagainst the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2005
\npassed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
\nCivil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51699 of 2000, whereby the
\norder challenged in the writ petition was quashed and
\nthe writ petition was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs will appear from the materials on record, the
\nrespondent No. 1 herein, Shri Ram Pratap Yadav, was
\nappointed as Secretary\/General Manager of the Mau-Aima
\nSarkari Katai Mills Limited at Mau-Aima in Allahabad on
\n24th January, 1990 by the U.P. Co-operative Spinning
\nMills Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as
\nFederation), which is the apex body of various Co-
\noperative Spinning Mills in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
\nDuring his tenure as such General Manager of the Mau-
\nAima Spinning Mill various complaints were received
\nagainst him in regard to serious financial
\nirregularities alleged to have been committed by him.  A
\ncharge-sheet containing 15 charges was served on him, of
\nwhich the Enquiry Officer found charges 1, 4, 11 and 14
\nto have been fully proved, while charges 3, 8, 9, 12 and
\n13 were held to have been partly proved.   The other 6
\nremaining charges, were held not to have been proved.
\nThe enquiry report was thereafter placed before the
\nDisciplinary Authority, which, while confirming the
\nreport of the Enquiry Officer, omitted charge No. 8
\nholding that the same had not been proved either fully
\nor partly.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the basis of his findings the Disciplinary
\nAuthority removed the respondent No. 1 from the service
\nof the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mill Federation
\nLimited by his order dated 9th May, 1996.   The order of
\nhis removal was challenged by the respondent No. 1
\nbefore the Appellate Authority after three years on 7th
\nJuly, 1999.  The said appeal filed by the respondent
\nNo.1 was ultimately dismissed on 11th July, 2000.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may, however, be stated that the respondent No.
\n1 had challenged his removal by way of a writ petition
\nin 1996 and the same was disposed of with leave to make
\na representation before the concerned authority of the
\nFederation.  Subsequently, he filed Civil Misc. Writ
\nPetition No. 51699 of 2000 challenging the order dated
\n9th May, 1996 by which he was removed from the service of
\nthe Federation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe main contention of the respondent No.1\/Writ
\nPetitioner was set out in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17
\nof the writ petition which have been extracted in the
\njudgment of the Allahabad High Court impugned in the
\ninstant proceedings and are also re-produced hereinbelow
\nfor the sake of reference :-\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThat before dispending with the
\nservices of the petitioner no approval of
\nthe U.P. Co-operative Institutional
\nService Board as envisaged by Regulation
\n87 read with Section 84 of U.P. Co-\n<\/p>\n
operative Societies Employees Service
\nRegulation, 1975 has been obtained.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThat the U.P. Co-operative
\nInstitutional Service Board has been
\nestablished by means of a notification
\ndated 4.3.1972 under Section 122(1) of
\nthe U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965
\nconferring power upon the U.P. Co-\n<\/p>\n
operative Industrial Service Board with
\nregard to employees of the categories of
\nco-operative societies specified in the
\nsaid notification.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThat the aforesaid notification
\ncovers apex level societies.  The apex
\nlevel society are defined under Section
\n2(1-4) of the 1965 Act as including co-
\noperative societies whose membership
\nincludes at least one other Central Co-
\noperative Society, whose area of
\noperation covers the whole of U.P. and
\nwhose primary object is to facilitate the
\noperation of co-operative society
\naffiliated to it.  For convenience
\nSection 2(a-4) of the 1965 Act is
\nextracted below:\n<\/p>\n
2(a-4) Apex society, Apex level
\nsociety or State level co-operative
\nsociety means <\/p>\n
(1)\tU.P. State Co-operative  Land
\nDevelopment Bank Ltd. Lucknow;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tU.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
\nLucknow;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tU.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd.,
\nLucknow;\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tPradeshik Co-operative Dairy
\nFederation Ltd., Lucknow;\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tU.P. Co-operative Union Ltd.,
\nLucknow;\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tU.P. Upbokta Sahkari Sangh Ltd.,
\nLucknow;\n<\/p>\n
(7)\tU.P. Co-operative Sugar Federation
\nLtd.\n<\/p>\n
(8)\tU.P. Cane Unions Federation Ltd.,
\nLucknow;\n<\/p>\n
(9)\tU.P. Industrial Co-operative
\nAssociation Ltd., Kanpur; or<\/p>\n
(10)\tAny other central co-operative
\nsociety fulfilling the following
\nconditions:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tit includes in its membership at
\nleast one other central co-operative
\nsociety in the same time of business or
\ntrade; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tits area of operation covers the
\nwhole of Uttar Pradesh; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tits primary object is to
\nfacilitate the operation of the co-\n<\/p>\n
operative societies affiliated to it as
\nordinary members;\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThat the termination of service of
\nthe petitioner in the absence of approval
\nfrom the Co-operative Institutional
\nService Board is totally without
\nauthority and illegal.<\/p>\n
      As will appear from a reading of the aforesaid
\nparagraphs, his service conditions were said to be
\ngoverned and regulated by the U.P. Co-operative
\nSocieties Employees Service Regulations, 1975, which
\ncame into effect in the State of U.P. upon publication
\nin the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 6th January,
\n1976. It was the petitioners case that Regulation 87 of
\nthe said Regulations made it incumbent for the concerned
\nco-operative societies to impose major penalty only with
\nprior concurrence of the U.P. Co-operative Institutions
\nService Board.  For the sake of reference Regulation 87
\nis reproduced hereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
87. Order imposing penalty under sub-
\nclause (e) to (g) of clause (1) of
\nRegulation No. 84 shall not be passed
\nexcept with the prior concurrence of the
\nBoard.\n<\/p>\n
      It was the contention of the Respondent No. 1 that
\nsince the Federation had not obtained the prior
\nconcurrence of the aforesaid Board the major punishment
\nof dismissal imposed on the respondent was void and was
\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
      The Allahabad High Court confined itself mainly to
\nthe question regarding non-compliance of the provision
\nof Regulation 87 by the Federation, which did not
\ncontest the contention of the Respondent No. 1 in that
\nregard.  The High Court also held that although it was
\npleaded in the writ petition that no proper enquiry had
\nbeen held, the same had not been specifically denied,
\nand consequently such an allegation must be deemed to
\nhave been admitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court also recorded that from the orders
\nof the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate
\nAuthority, it was clear that they did not consider the
\ndefence set out by the respondent No. 1 and merely
\nconcurred with the report of the Enquiry Officer.  On
\nthe aforesaid findings, the Allahabad High Court allowed
\nthe Writ Petition and quashed the order of removal from
\nservice impugned in the Writ Petition.   On the strength
\nof the judgment and order of the High Court the
\nrespondent No. 1 was reinstated in service on 3rd
\nDecember, 2005 and he is continuing to work with the
\nFederation since his reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Federation is in appeal before us against the
\nsaid judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court.\n<\/p>\n
      On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted
\nthat the High Court had wrongly proceeded on the basis
\nthat the services of the Respondent No. 1 were governed
\nby the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service
\nRegulations 1975 which contains Regulation 87 referred
\nto hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
      It was submitted that at the first meeting of
\nCommittee of the Management of the Federation held on 4th
\nMarch, 1983 Agenda No. 10 was included to consider the
\nadoption of Service Rules, Medical and other allowances
\nas well as advances to the staff of the Federation.   In
\nthe minutes of the said meeting the Resolution adopted
\nin respect of the said Agenda was recorded as follows :\n<\/p>\n
It is Resolved that till the Federation
\nis able to frame its own Service Rules,
\nT.A., Medical, other allowances and
\nadvances rules for the Staff of the
\nFederation, the rules prevailing in this
\ndirection in U.P. State Textile
\nCorporation Ltd. may be adopted as they
\nare.<\/p>\n
\tAccordingly, the service Rules of the employees of
\nthe Federation were taken out of the purview of the 1975
\nRegulations and were brought under the Rules of the U.P.
\nState Textile Corporation Ltd. from 4th March, 1983.\n<\/p>\n
\tUnder the said Rules of the U.P. State Textile
\nCorporation provision has been made in Rule 4 for
\nimposition of penalties.  Clause B thereof indicates the
\nmajor penalties, which could be imposed on an employee,
\nwhich include removal from service, which would not
\nordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.
\nThe said rules also provide for dismissal, which would
\nbe a bar against future employment.\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 14 sets out the procedure for imposing major
\npenalties and Rule 21 provides for appeal that an
\nemployee may file against an order imposing upon him any
\nof the prescribed penalties, within one month from the
\ndate of the communication of the order appealed against.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was submitted that a glance at the enquiry
\nreport would indicate that the enquiry had been held
\nfairly and upon offering sufficient opportunity to the
\nrespondent to meet the charges brought against him and
\non consideration of the materials on record the Enquiry
\nOfficer held that some of the charges had been fully
\nproved against the respondent and that some of the
\ncharges had been partly proved against him.  The Enquiry
\nOfficer also recorded that the remaining charges had not
\nbeen proved.   The enquiry report was placed before the
\nDisciplinary Authority, which disagreed with the finding
\nof the Enquiry Officer as far as charge No. 8 was
\nconcerned, and, accordingly, the said charge was also
\nheld not to have been proved against the respondent.  It
\nwas submitted that the High Court, without discussing
\nthe enquiry report or the order passed by the
\nDisciplinary Authority, simply made an observation that
\nthere was no specific denial of the averments made in
\nthe writ petition in that regard.   On the other hand,
\nit was pointed out that such an allegation had been
\nspecifically denied in paragraph 8 of the counter
\naffidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6
\nbefore the Allahabad High Court and it was categorically
\nstated that the termination order had been passed after
\ndue examination of relevant materials and after offering
\nfull opportunity to the respondent herein.   It was
\nsubmitted further that the same averments had been
\nreiterated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit,
\nwhich the High Court appears to have overlooked.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was, therefore, urged that since the order of
\nthe High Court was on the understanding that the 1975
\nRegulations applied in the petitioners case, the same
\nwas passed on mis-application of the law governing the
\nservice conditions of the respondent and the same was,
\ntherefore, liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe respondent, based his submissions on the
\nunderstanding that it was the 1975 Regulations which
\nwere applicable to the respondent and that the High
\nCourt did not commit any error in holding that in the
\nabsence of prior concurrence from the Board, in terms of
\nRegulation 87, the order of removal from service was
\nerroneous and was liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Shekhar submitted that the notification dated
\n16th October, 1981, by which textile mills had been
\nexcluded from the purview of the 1975 Regulations, had
\nnot been brought to the notice of the High Court, and,
\nin any event, the same did not refer to spinning mills,
\nsuch as Mau-Aima Spinning Mill, where the respondent had
\nbeen posted as Secretary\/General Manager after his
\nappointment by the Federation.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Shekhar sought to make a distinction between
\nspinning mills and textile mills and submitted that
\nnotwithstanding the aforesaid notification dated 16th
\nOctober, 1981, spinning mills continued to remain within
\nthe purview of the 1975 Regulations and the High Court
\nhad, therefore, rightly held, that in the absence of
\nprior concurrence of the Board, the order removing the
\npetitioner from service had been passed without
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn a careful consideration of the submissions
\nadvanced on behalf of the parties and the materials on
\nrecord, it appears to us that had the notification dated
\n16th October, 1981, and Minutes of the first meeting of
\nthe Committee of the Management of the Federation held
\non 4th March, 1983, been placed before the High Court,
\nthe High Court may not have proceeded on the
\nunderstanding that the 1975 Regulations applied to the
\nrespondent and that the order of removal from service
\npassed without prior concurrence of the Board, was in
\nviolation of the said Regulations and could not,
\ntherefore, be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Notification dated 16th October, 1981, issued by
\nthe State Government makes it quite clear that co-
\noperative textile mills were to be excluded from the
\npurview of 1975 Regulations.  The subsequent resolution
\nadopted by the Federation on 4th March, 1983 made the
\nposition even more clear by resolving that till the
\nFederation was able to frame its own service Rules, the
\nRules prevailing in the U.P. State Textile Corporation
\nwere to be adopted as they were.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn other words, the Regulations of 1975 were not to
\napply to the employees of the Federation from 4th March,
\n1983.   However, Mr. Shekhar had taken the stand that
\nnotwithstanding the notification of 16th October, 1981,
\nthe 1975 Regulations continued to apply to spinning
\nmills since only co-operative textile mills had been
\nexcluded from the operation of the 1975 Regulations.
\nMr. Shekhar invited us to make a distinction between
\nspinning mills and textile mills, which we are unable to
\nappreciate, since basically spinning mills and textile
\nmills are complementary to each other. In our view,
\nspinning mills would also come under the description
\nof textile mills.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have no hesitation, therefore, in agreeing with
\nthe submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the
\nservice of the respondent was governed not by the 1975
\nRegulations but by the Rules of the U.P. State Textile
\nLimited.   The question of compliance with the
\nprovisions of the Regulations which provide for
\nobtaining prior concurrence of the Board, would not
\narise in the instant case.   It is unfortunate that
\nneither the Notification of 16th October, 1981 nor the
\nMinutes of the Meeting of Federation held on 4th March,
\n1983 had been brought to the notice of the High Court by
\nthe appellant, but since the same has been brought to
\nour notice, we cannot allow the erroneous application of
\nthe 1975 Regulations to continue.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the
\norder of the High Court impugned in the appeal.  We,
\nhowever, make it clear that no recovery shall be made
\nfrom the respondent on account of his services after
\nreinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving regard to the peculiar facts of this case,
\nthe respective parties will bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation … vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007 Author: A Kabir Bench: H.K. Sema, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5279 of 2006 PETITIONER: U.P. Co-op Spg. Mills Federation Limited and another RESPONDENT: RAM PRATAP YADAV & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/10\/2007 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nU.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation ... vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation ... vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-06T14:33:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation … vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-06T14:33:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2383,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007\",\"name\":\"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation ... vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-06T14:33:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation … vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation ... vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation ... vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-06T14:33:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation … vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-06T14:33:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007"},"wordCount":2383,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007","name":"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation ... vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-06T14:33:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-co-op-spg-mills-federation-vs-ram-pratap-yadav-ors-on-5-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.P. Co-Op Spg. Mills Federation … vs Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors on 5 October, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124977\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}