{"id":218621,"date":"2008-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-01-20T22:01:58","modified_gmt":"2015-01-20T16:31:58","slug":"mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. … vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union … on 3 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. … vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union … on 3 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
                                                                     1\n\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO.      OF 2008\n     @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5983 OF 2007\n\n\n\nMootha Venkateswara Rao (Dead)\nTr. Lrs.                                                  ...\nAppellants\n\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nGodhavari Co-op Milk P. Union\nLtd. & Ors.                                               ...\nRespondents\n\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.       Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.       Pursuant to a notification under Section 4<\/p>\n
         (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated<\/p>\n
         8th   June,   1978,   the   Government   of   Andhra
\n                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
Pradesh acquired 5 acres of land in Survey<\/p>\n
No.   212\/1B       of     Ramanayyapeta             in    Kakinada<\/p>\n
Municipality             for         the         purpose              of<\/p>\n
construction of a mini-dairy. The appellant<\/p>\n
herein    was   the          claimant       before       the        Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition        Officer,          who    passed        an    award<\/p>\n
fixing    the   market          value       of    the     land       at<\/p>\n
Rs.28,750\/- per acre.                      Possession of the<\/p>\n
lands was taken on 31st August, 1978.                               The<\/p>\n
appellant,          herein,                challenged               the<\/p>\n
acquisition        itself        by        way      of     a        Writ<\/p>\n
Petition      No.4082           of     1979,         which          was<\/p>\n
dismissed     on    9th       July,    1984.        The    appeal,<\/p>\n
which was preferred from the judgment of<\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge, being Writ Appeal<\/p>\n
No.     670   of        1985,     was        allowed           on    7th<\/p>\n
February, 1991.              The matter was carried to<\/p>\n
this Court by the respondents herein in SLP<\/p>\n
(C)     No.19302        of     1991,        which    ultimately<\/p>\n
ended in a compromise.                     The Special Leave<\/p>\n
Petition was disposed of on 1st September,<\/p>\n
1992,    in   pursuance          of    the       Memorandum           of
\n                                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
     Settlement filed by the parties, wherein it<\/p>\n
     was agreed that the date of Notification<\/p>\n
     would be treated as 7th February, 1991, for<\/p>\n
     all purposes, and, accordingly, the market<\/p>\n
     value    of   the   lands   as    prevailing      on   the<\/p>\n
     said date was to be taken for determination<\/p>\n
     of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   Subsequent to the said order passed by this<\/p>\n
     Court, the matter was again taken up by the<\/p>\n
     Reference      Court.         After      taking        into<\/p>\n
     consideration       further      evidence   which       was<\/p>\n
     led     and   the   materials       on   record,        the<\/p>\n
     Reference Court fixed the market value at<\/p>\n
     Rs.800\/- per square yard and aggrieved by<\/p>\n
     the same the respondents herein preferred<\/p>\n
     an appeal to the High Court, being First<\/p>\n
     Appeal No. 836 of 2003.           During the hearing<\/p>\n
     of the appeal, the Memorandum of Settlement<\/p>\n
     arrived at between the parties was referred<\/p>\n
     to and while on behalf of the respondents<\/p>\n
     herein, it was contended that the Reference
\n                                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
      Court had wrongly fixed the market value of<\/p>\n
      the acquired lands at Rs.800\/- per square<\/p>\n
      yard, on behalf of the appellant herein,<\/p>\n
      particular emphasis was laid on the fourth<\/p>\n
      paragraph of the Memorandum of Settlement,<\/p>\n
      which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
           “The compensation determined by
\n       the    learned   Subordinate   Judge,
\n       Kakinada will have to be paid to the
\n       respondent within a period of eight
\n       weeks thereafter.    In default, the
\n       Acquisition will stand set aside the
\n       rights and liabilities of the parties
\n       will be determined in accordance with
\n       law.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   The    High    Court    was,   however,      of    the    view<\/p>\n
     that despite the fact that payment had not<\/p>\n
     been    made    in     terms   of   the   Memorandum        of<\/p>\n
     Settlement, since the main appeal was being<\/p>\n
     heard, the entire acquisition as such could<\/p>\n
     not     be     washed     away,      which        would     be<\/p>\n
     detrimental to both the parties.                   It is on<\/p>\n
     such note that the appeal was taken up for<\/p>\n
     final decision though, ultimately, the same<\/p>\n
     was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
5.   This appeal has been filed by the heirs of<\/p>\n
     the original claimant, who had died in the<\/p>\n
     meantime,       mainly       on    the       question        as     to<\/p>\n
     whether    the       High    Court       had     erred       in    not<\/p>\n
     setting aside the acquisition proceedings in<\/p>\n
     terms     of    the     compromise           which     had        been<\/p>\n
     arrived at between the parties and recorded<\/p>\n
     in the order dated 1st September, 1992 passed<\/p>\n
     in   SLP(C)      No.19302         of     1991.         The    other<\/p>\n
     ground,        which     had       been        taken     by       the<\/p>\n
     appellant is          whether      the    High     Court      acted<\/p>\n
     correctly       in    directing        the     respondents         to<\/p>\n
     pay the compensation amount, which amounted<\/p>\n
     to   extending         the     time       for     making          such<\/p>\n
     deposit which was contrary to the terms of<\/p>\n
     the Memorandum of Settlement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.   Appearing        for     the       appellants,           Mr.       R.<\/p>\n
     Nariman,       learned      Senior       Advocate,       confined<\/p>\n
     his submissions to the two points indicated<\/p>\n
     hereinabove. Learned counsel urged that once
\n                                                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
     a compromise had been arrived at between the<\/p>\n
     parties, the terms whereof had been reduced<\/p>\n
     to writing in the form of a Memorandum of<\/p>\n
     Settlement,         it    was        not    open     to    the    High<\/p>\n
     Court    to    ignore          the    terms        and    conditions<\/p>\n
     contained therein upon observing that since<\/p>\n
     the     main     appeal             was     being        heard,   the<\/p>\n
     acquisition proceedings could not be washed<\/p>\n
     away.     Mr.        Nariman          submitted           that    the<\/p>\n
     approach       of    the       High        Court    was     entirely<\/p>\n
     wrong     since          by     operation           of     law    the<\/p>\n
     acquisition proceedings stood set aside on<\/p>\n
     the    failure       of       the    respondents          to   comply<\/p>\n
     with     the        terms       of         the     Memorandum       of<\/p>\n
     Settlement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   Mr. Nariman urged               that       in    accordance       with<\/p>\n
     the terms of             the    Memorandum          of    Settlement<\/p>\n
     the learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, was<\/p>\n
     directed       to        determine           the     compensation<\/p>\n
     payable to the appellant herein for the land<\/p>\n
     acquired, in accordance with the provisions
\n                                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.                           Certain<\/p>\n
other benefits          to    which    the       appellant         was<\/p>\n
entitled    was        also    indicated          in       the     said<\/p>\n
order.     However,            what     was           of     utmost<\/p>\n
importance        was        the   condition           that        the<\/p>\n
compensation which was to be determined by<\/p>\n
the     learned    Subordinate          Judge,             Kakinada,<\/p>\n
would    have     to     be    paid     to       the       appellant<\/p>\n
within a period of 8 weeks thereafter, in<\/p>\n
default    the     acquisition          would          stand       set<\/p>\n
aside and the rights and liabilities of the<\/p>\n
parties    would        be    determined         in    accordance<\/p>\n
with    law.    Mr.      Nariman       submitted            that     in<\/p>\n
accordance with the terms of the Memorandum<\/p>\n
of Settlement the learned Subordinate Judge<\/p>\n
determined the compensation payable to the<\/p>\n
appellant on       23.1.2003          and    payment         of    the<\/p>\n
compensation            amount,             as         per          the<\/p>\n
determination of the value of the acquired<\/p>\n
lands by the Subordinate Judge, was to be<\/p>\n
made on or before 23.3.2003. However, even<\/p>\n
when the Special Leave Petition was filed on
\n                                                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
     2.3.2007, no deposit had been made in terms<\/p>\n
     of the Memorandum of Settlement.<\/p>\n
8.   Mr.     Nariman        submitted          that        since     the<\/p>\n
     acquisition itself stood set aside in terms<\/p>\n
     of the Memorandum             of    Settlement,           the   only<\/p>\n
     course left open to the respondents was to<\/p>\n
     issue a fresh Notification for acquisition<\/p>\n
     of the lands in question and to proceed in<\/p>\n
     accordance           with         law,     thereafter,            in<\/p>\n
     computing the compensation payable for the<\/p>\n
     land    on    account       of     such    acquisition.          Mr.<\/p>\n
     Nariman also submitted that the High Court<\/p>\n
     had     acted     beyond          its     jurisdiction           and<\/p>\n
     authority in unilaterally extending the time<\/p>\n
     for     depositing          the     compensation           amount,<\/p>\n
     since    according      to        the    terms       of   the   same<\/p>\n
     Memorandum      of      Settlement             the    acquisition<\/p>\n
     proceedings had been set aside.<\/p>\n
9.   On    the    other    hand,       Mr.     L.    Nageshwar       Rao,<\/p>\n
     learned       Senior        Advocate,          submitted        that
\n                                                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
attempts      had     been         made     to        deposit        the<\/p>\n
compensation        amount          with        the     Divisional<\/p>\n
Officer, Kakinada, by sending Demand Drafts<\/p>\n
for      amounts         of        Rs.2,13,87,500\/-                  and<\/p>\n
Rs.11,14,34,033.              An    application             was     also<\/p>\n
moved    on     behalf        of    the     respondent             State<\/p>\n
before    the     Second       Additional         Senior           Civil<\/p>\n
Judge,     Kakinada,           seeking          permission            to<\/p>\n
deposit the said amount, but such prayer was<\/p>\n
rejected on 22.8.2007,                on    the       ground        that<\/p>\n
the     Special      Leave         Petition           was        pending<\/p>\n
before this Court. A Civil Revision Petition<\/p>\n
filed    against       the         said     order           is     still<\/p>\n
pending decision in the High Court. Mr. Rao<\/p>\n
submitted that ultimately by an order dated<\/p>\n
11.10.2007 the High Court granted leave to<\/p>\n
the     State       authorities            to     deposit            the<\/p>\n
decretal amount before the Second Additional<\/p>\n
Senior     Civil         Judge,           Kakinada,              without<\/p>\n
prejudice to the rights and contentions of<\/p>\n
the   parties.       Pursuant        thereto,          the        amount
\n                                                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
      was     said     to      have         been        deposited        on<\/p>\n
      22.10.2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   It was submitted that admittedly there was a<\/p>\n
      delay in making the deposit in terms of the<\/p>\n
      Memorandum      of     Settlement         which         formed    the<\/p>\n
      basis of the order dated 1.9.1992 passed by<\/p>\n
      this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3476 of 1992<\/p>\n
      filed      by      the         Andhra         Pradesh           Dairy<\/p>\n
      Development Corporation, but such delay was<\/p>\n
      not     intentional           as      various           proceedings<\/p>\n
      intervened        in         the      meantime.           Mr.     Rao<\/p>\n
      submitted       that    in     the     appeal,          being    F.A.<\/p>\n
      No.836    of     2003,        filed     by    Andhra        Pradesh<\/p>\n
      Dairy       Development                Corporation,               the<\/p>\n
      respondent No.2 herein, an interim order was<\/p>\n
      passed by the High Court on 23rd April, 2003,<\/p>\n
      staying the operation of the Order dated 23rd<\/p>\n
      January,       2003,     passed         by        the    Principal<\/p>\n
      Senior    Civil        Judge,      Kakinada,            fixing    the<\/p>\n
      market     value        of     the      acquired          land     at<\/p>\n
      Rs.800\/-    per      square        yard      as    on     7.2.1991,
\n                                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
which    continued       to    be   operative      till    the<\/p>\n
appeal       itself     was    dismissed     by    the    High<\/p>\n
Court    on    9.6.2006.       It   was    also    submitted<\/p>\n
that immediately after the pronouncement of<\/p>\n
the Judgment by the High Court, steps were<\/p>\n
taken to deposit the compensation amount as<\/p>\n
per the Memorandum of Settlement by making<\/p>\n
an application before the Second Additional<\/p>\n
Senior       Civil    Judge,    Kakinada,       praying    for<\/p>\n
leave to make such deposit in the execution<\/p>\n
proceedings which had been commenced in the<\/p>\n
meantime.       While    granting     such      prayer,    the<\/p>\n
High     Court       directed       that   stay     of     the<\/p>\n
execution would be subject to the condition<\/p>\n
of the respondent herein depositing 1\/4th of<\/p>\n
the     enhanced        compensation       in     two    equal<\/p>\n
instalments within four months from the date<\/p>\n
of     the     order,     failing      which      the     said<\/p>\n
petition       would    stand    dismissed.       Since    the<\/p>\n
respondents were unable to deposit the said<\/p>\n
amount they filed an application before the<\/p>\n
High Court seeking extension of time to make
\n                                                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
      such     deposit.            On    the     other        hand,     the<\/p>\n
      appellant herein filed Writ Petition No.6832<\/p>\n
      of 2003 for restitution of the possession of<\/p>\n
      the acquired land. However, the High Court<\/p>\n
      by its order dated 30.4.2003 dismissed the<\/p>\n
      Writ Petition and granted the respondents a<\/p>\n
      further    period        of       two     months    for     making<\/p>\n
      payment of Rs.2 crores in instalments within<\/p>\n
      a period of two months and stayed further<\/p>\n
      proceedings          pursuant       to     the     order        dated<\/p>\n
      23.1.2003       passed       by     the     Principal       Senior<\/p>\n
      Civil Judge, Kakinada.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.    Mr.     Rao    submitted          that     in     view    of     the<\/p>\n
      aforesaid proceedings and the interim order<\/p>\n
      staying        the     execution           proceedings,           the<\/p>\n
      respondents          were     unable       to     keep     to     the<\/p>\n
      timing     in    making           the     deposit.        Mr.     Rao<\/p>\n
      submitted       that        keeping       in     mind     all     the<\/p>\n
      aforesaid facts, the High Court had rightly<\/p>\n
      not    bound         itself       to      the      time     period<\/p>\n
      stipulated in the Memorandum of Settlement
\n                                                                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
      for depositing the compensation amount. Mr.<\/p>\n
      Rao    urged       that    if   the     submission     made    on<\/p>\n
      behalf of the appellant was to be accepted,<\/p>\n
      the     only          effect    will    be    that     a     fresh<\/p>\n
      Notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894<\/p>\n
      Act would have to be issued and the date for<\/p>\n
      calculation of the compensation amount would<\/p>\n
      have    to       be    taken    from    the   fresh    date    of<\/p>\n
      publication, which was likely to result in a<\/p>\n
      substantial enhancement of the compensation<\/p>\n
      payable          for     acquisition     of    the     land    in<\/p>\n
      question.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   On      a        careful        consideration          of     the<\/p>\n
      submissions made on behalf of the respective<\/p>\n
      parties, it is clear that the only question<\/p>\n
      which       we     are     called      upon   to     decide    is<\/p>\n
      whether          having     regard      to    the    conditions<\/p>\n
      imposed in the Memorandum of Settlement, the<\/p>\n
      acquisition            proceedings       would       stand    set<\/p>\n
      aside in view of the default committed by<\/p>\n
      the State and its authorities in depositing
\n                                                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
      the    amount      awarded     within          the     time<\/p>\n
      stipulated in the Settlement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   Admittedly, the order passed by the Second<\/p>\n
      Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, was to be the<\/p>\n
      basis of the compensation to be awarded to<\/p>\n
      the   appellants    herein.       However,      the    said<\/p>\n
      order also came to be challenged in the High<\/p>\n
      Court and a stay was also granted to the<\/p>\n
      execution    thereof,     which     lasted      till    the<\/p>\n
      appeal was finally dismissed on 9.6.2006. It<\/p>\n
      is only after the dismissal of the appeal<\/p>\n
      and the vacation of the stay order that the<\/p>\n
      respondents began to take steps for deposit<\/p>\n
      of    the   compensation      amount      as    per     the<\/p>\n
      Memorandum of Settlement. It is, therefore,<\/p>\n
      obvious     that     because        of       intervening<\/p>\n
      circumstances,          the        time          schedule<\/p>\n
      contemplated in the Memorandum of Settlement<\/p>\n
      for deposit of      the    compensation        amount    by<\/p>\n
      the respondent stood disturbed. Because of<\/p>\n
      the stay order granted by the High Court,
\n                                                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
the     respondents         were       released       from     the<\/p>\n
obligation      of     making      such       deposit      within<\/p>\n
eight    weeks       from    the       date    on   which      the<\/p>\n
compensation was determined by the learned<\/p>\n
Subordinate           Judge,           Kakinada         (Second<\/p>\n
Additional Senior Civil Judge). In our view,<\/p>\n
once the respondents stood released of the<\/p>\n
obligation of making the deposit within the<\/p>\n
time     specified          in     the        Memorandum        of<\/p>\n
Settlement by the orders of Court, it will<\/p>\n
no longer be available to the appellant to<\/p>\n
claim that because of the default in making<\/p>\n
the    deposit,      the    acquisition         should       stand<\/p>\n
set    aside   in     terms       of    the    Memorandum       of<\/p>\n
Settlement.       The       questions         posed     by     Mr.<\/p>\n
Nariman at the beginning of the submissions,<\/p>\n
have therefore, to be answered against the<\/p>\n
appellant and in favour of the respondent.<\/p>\n
Firstly, the acquisition proceeding does not<\/p>\n
stand set aside on account of the default on<\/p>\n
the part of the respondents in making the<\/p>\n
deposit        within         8        weeks        from       the
\n                                                                                     16<\/span><\/p>\n
      determination of the value of the acquired<\/p>\n
      land    by     the    learned        Subordinate                     Judge,<\/p>\n
      Kakinada.      Consequentially, even the second<\/p>\n
      question raised by Mr. Nariman that the High<\/p>\n
      Court    had    acted       without       jurisdiction                          in<\/p>\n
      extending the        time     for    making           the          deposit<\/p>\n
      cannot also be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.   We, therefore, see            no    reason          to        interfere<\/p>\n
      with the impugned judgment of the High Court<\/p>\n
      and    the   appeal      is      accordingly               dismissed.<\/p>\n
      Since, the deposits are said to have already<\/p>\n
      been made pursuant to the permission granted<\/p>\n
      by the High Court, the claimants to the said<\/p>\n
      compensation      will      be     entitled           to        withdraw<\/p>\n
      the same upon proper identification.<\/p>\n
15.   There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                            ……………………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     (ALTAMAS KABIR)
\n                                                           17<\/span><\/p>\n
                  ……………………………………….J.
\n                     (MARKANDEY KATJU)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated 3.12.2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. … vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union … on 3 December, 2008 Bench: Altamas Kabir, Markandey Katju 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5983 OF 2007 Mootha Venkateswara Rao (Dead) Tr. Lrs. […]<\/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-218621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. ... vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union ... on 3 December, 2008 - 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\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. ... vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union ... on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-20T16:31:58+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. … vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union … on 3 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-20T16:31:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2146,\"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\\\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. ... vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union ... on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-20T16:31:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. … vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union … on 3 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. ... vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union ... on 3 December, 2008 - 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\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. ... vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union ... on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-20T16:31:58+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. … vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union … on 3 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-20T16:31:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008"},"wordCount":2146,"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\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008","name":"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. ... vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union ... on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-20T16:31:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mootha-venkateswara-rao-d-tr-vs-godhavari-co-op-milk-p-union-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. … vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union … on 3 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/218621","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=218621"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218621\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}