{"id":236945,"date":"2000-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000"},"modified":"2017-04-23T01:15:45","modified_gmt":"2017-04-22T19:45:45","slug":"ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S N Variava<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.N.Variava, S.R.Babu<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nM\/S.  SCOOTERS INDIA LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.  MOHAMMAD YAQUB &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.N.Variava, S.R.Babu\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p> S.  N.\t VARIAVA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>      This  Appeal is against an Order dated 13th May,\t1998<br \/>\nby  which the writ petition filed by the Appellant has\tbeen<br \/>\ndismissed.   Briefly  stated the facts are as follows:\t The<br \/>\n1st  Respondent\t was appointed as unskilled  workman  w.e.f.<br \/>\n9th  September, 1974 and was then promoted to the post of  a<br \/>\nsemi-skilled  worker w.e.f.  7th June, 1975.  On 1st August,<br \/>\n1976  the Respondent&#8217;s name was removed from the roll of the<br \/>\nCompany\t under\tStanding  Order 9.3.12.\t The  said  Standing<br \/>\nOrder  reads  as follows :  &#8220;9.3.12 Any workman who  remains<br \/>\nabsent\tfrom  duty without leave in excess of the period  of<br \/>\nleave  originally  sanctioned or subsequently  extended\t for<br \/>\nmore  than  10 consecutive days, he shall be deemed to\thave<br \/>\nleft  the services of the Company of his own accord, without<br \/>\nnotice, thereby terminating his contract of service with the<br \/>\nCompany\t and  his name will, accordingly, be struck off\t the<br \/>\nrolls.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      The Respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was<br \/>\nreferred  for adjudication to the Labour Court, Lucknow.  By<br \/>\nan  Award dated 20th July, 1984, the Labour Court held\tthat<br \/>\nthere  was retrenchment.  The Labour Court held that as\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tlaw,  regarding retrenchment, had  not\tbeen<br \/>\nfollowed  the  termination  was illegal.  The  Labour  Court<br \/>\ndirected  reinstatement with continuity of service and\tfull<br \/>\nback   wages.\tThe  Appellant\t filed\tthe  Writ   Petition<br \/>\nchallenging  the  Award.   The\tWrit  Petition\tcame  to  be<br \/>\ndismissed  by the impugned order dated 13th May, 1998.\t Mr.<br \/>\nSwarup\tsubmitted  that\t there\t was  no  retrenchment.\t  He<br \/>\nsubmitted  that the Respondent had been suspended from\t28th<br \/>\nJune,  1976 to 7th July, 1976 and was to join duty after 7th<br \/>\nJuly,  1976.  He submitted that the Respondent did not\tjoin<br \/>\nduty.\tHe  submitted  that the\t Respondent  was  personally<br \/>\nadvised\t by  the Chief Personnel Officer of the\t Company  to<br \/>\njoin  his  duty on 23rd July, 1976, failing which  his\tname<br \/>\nwould  be removed from the roll.  Mr.  Swarup submitted that<br \/>\nthe  Chief  Personnel Officer of the Company wrote a  letter<br \/>\ndated  24th July, 1976, calling upon the Respondent to\tjoin<br \/>\nduties\tlatest\tby 30th July, 1976, failing which  his\tname<br \/>\nwould  be  removed  from  the  rolls  of  the  company.\t  He<br \/>\nsubmitted that the Respondent still failed to join duty.  He<br \/>\nsubmitted  that\t under these circumstances the Appellant  is<br \/>\nentitled  to remove the name of the Respondent from the roll<br \/>\nof the company under the above mentioned Standing Order.  He<br \/>\nsubmitted that such removal does not amount to retrenchment.<br \/>\nHe  relied  upon the judgment in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1365916\/\">Scooters  India<br \/>\nand  Ors.   vs.\t  Vijai E.V.  Eldred<\/a> reported  in  1998\t (6)<br \/>\nS.C.C.\t549, wherein in respect of Standing Order 9.3.12, it<br \/>\nhas  been  observed as follows :  &#8220;It is also  extraordinary<br \/>\nfor  the  High\tCourt  to have held  clause  9.3.12  of\t the<br \/>\nstanding  orders  as  invalid.\t  Learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  rightly made no attempt to support this part  of<br \/>\nthe High Court&#8217;s order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      On  the other hand Mr.  Chinnasamy has relied upon the<br \/>\ncase  of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1460162\/\">Uptron  India\t Ltd.  vs.   Shammi  Bhan  and\tAnr.<\/a><br \/>\nreported  in 1998 (6) S.C.C.  538.  In this case it was held<br \/>\nthat  such a standing order conferred a discretion upon\t the<br \/>\nmanagement  to terminate or not to terminate the services of<br \/>\nan  employee who overstays the leave.  It was held that\t the<br \/>\ndiscretion  had to be based on an objective consideration of<br \/>\nall  circumstances  and material which may be  available  on<br \/>\nrecord.\t  It  was held that questions which would  naturally<br \/>\narise  are  what  circumstances compelled  the\temployee  to<br \/>\nproceed\t on  leave, why he overstayed leave, was  there\t any<br \/>\njust  and reasonable cause for overstaying leave, whether he<br \/>\ngave  any  further  application\t  for  extension  of  leave;<br \/>\nwhether\t any medical certificate was sent if he had, in\t the<br \/>\nmeantime  fallen ill.  It was held that such questions could<br \/>\nonly  be answered by the management provided it was inherent<br \/>\nin  the provision that the employee against whom action\t was<br \/>\nproposed  to  be taken on the basis of such a provision\t was<br \/>\ngiven  an  opportunity\tof  hearing.\tIt  was\t held\tthat<br \/>\nprinciples  of\tnatural justice had to be read into  such  a<br \/>\nclause\tand  the  principles of natural justice\t had  to  be<br \/>\ncomplied  with.\t  It  was held that the employee had  to  be<br \/>\ninformed  of the grounds for which action was proposed to be<br \/>\ntaken  against\thim for overstaying the leave.\tIt was\theld<br \/>\nthat   a  Standing  Order   which  provided  for   automatic<br \/>\ntermination  of service of a permanent employee would be bad<br \/>\nif  it did not purport to provide an opportunity of  hearing<br \/>\nto  the employee whose services are treated to have come  to<br \/>\nan  end\t automatically.\t  It  must  be\tmentioned  that\t the<br \/>\nauthority  in Scooters India&#8217;s case (supra) was cited before<br \/>\nthis  Court.  In respect of that case it was held as follows<br \/>\n:   &#8220;22.   Learned  counsel for the  petitioner\t has  placed<br \/>\nstrong\treliance  upon a decision of this Court in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1365916\/\">Scooters<br \/>\nIndia  v.   Vijay  E.V.\t Eldred,<\/a> 1996 (6)  S.C.C.   549,  in<br \/>\nsupport of his contention that any stipulation for automatic<br \/>\ntermination  of\t services made in the Standing Orders  could<br \/>\nnot have been declared to be invalid.  We have been referred<br \/>\nto  a  stray  sentence\tin that judgment, which\t is  to\t the<br \/>\nfollowing effect :\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;It  is also extraordinary for the High Court to\thave<br \/>\nheld clause 9.3.12 of the Standing Orders as invalid.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      This  sentence  in  the  judgment cannot\tbe  read  in<br \/>\nisolation  and\twe  must refer to the  subsequent  sentences<br \/>\nwhich run as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;Learned\tcounsel\t for the respondent rightly made  no<br \/>\nattempt\t to support this part of the High Court&#8217;s order.  In<br \/>\nview  of the fact that we are setting aside the High Court&#8217;s<br \/>\njudgment, we need not deal with this aspect in detail.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      23.  In view of this observation, the question whether<br \/>\nthe  stipulation  for automatic termination of services\t for<br \/>\noverstaying  the leave would be legally bad or not, was\t not<br \/>\ndecided\t by  this Court in the judgment relied upon  by\t Mr.<br \/>\nManoj  Swarup.\t In that judgment the grounds on  which\t the<br \/>\ninterference  was made were different.\tThe judgment of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  was set aside on the ground that it  could\t not<br \/>\ndecide\tthe disputed question of fact in a writ petition and<br \/>\nthe matter should have been better left to be decided by the<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal.  Further, the High Court was approached<br \/>\nafter  more than six years of the date on which the cause of<br \/>\naction had arisen without there being any cogent explanation<br \/>\nfor  the  delay.   Mr.\tManoj Swarup contended that  it\t was<br \/>\nconceded  by the counsel appearing on behalf of the employee<br \/>\nthat   the  provision  in   the\t Standing  Orders  regarding<br \/>\nautomatic  termination\tof  services is not bad.   This\t was<br \/>\nendorsed by this Court by observing that :\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;Learned\tcounsel\t for the respondent rightly made  no<br \/>\nattempt to support this part of the High Court&#8217;s order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      This  again  cannot  be treated to be a  finding\tthat<br \/>\nprovision  for\tautomatic  termination of  services  can  be<br \/>\nvalidly\t made  in  the\t Certified  Standing  Orders.\tEven<br \/>\notherwise,  a wrong concession on a question of law, made by<br \/>\na  counsel,  is not binding on his client.  Such  concession<br \/>\ncannot\tconstitute  a just ground for a\t binding  precedent.<br \/>\nThe  reliance placed by Mr.  Manoj Swarup on this  judgment,<br \/>\ntherefore, is wholly out of place.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  are in complete agreement with the ratio laid down<br \/>\nin  this case as well as the observations made by this Court<br \/>\nin respect of the stray observation in Scooters India&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra).  Therefore, it is clear that there could not be any<br \/>\nautomatic  termination\tof  the Respondent on the  basis  of<br \/>\nStanding Order 9.3.12.\tPrinciples of natural justice had to<br \/>\nbe complied with.  The question which then arises is whether<br \/>\nthe  principles\t of  natural justice were followed  in\tthis<br \/>\ncase.\tAs  has\t been set out herein above Mr.\t Swarup\t had<br \/>\nsubmitted  that the workman had been given an opportunity to<br \/>\njoin  the  duty\t and that he did not join duty\teven  though<br \/>\nrepeatedly  called  upon  to do so.  It\t is  contended\tthat<br \/>\nprinciples  of\tnatural justice have been complied  with  in<br \/>\nthis  case.   However,\tthe  material  on  record  indicates<br \/>\notherwise.   The  Labour  Court in its Award  sets  out\t and<br \/>\naccepts\t the Respondent&#8217;s case that he had not been  allowed<br \/>\nto  join duty.\tThe Respondent has given evidence that\teven<br \/>\nthough\the  personally\tmet Chief Personnel Officer  he\t was<br \/>\nstill  not  allowed to enter the premises.  The evidence  is<br \/>\nthat  in  spite\t of slip Ext.  W.2, he\twas  prevented\tfrom<br \/>\njoining\t duty when he attempted to join duty.  The slip Ext.<br \/>\nW.2  had  been\tsigned\tby the\tSecurity  Inspector  of\t the<br \/>\nAppellant.  This showed that the Respondent had reported for<br \/>\nwork.\tAs  against this evidence the Appellant has not\t led<br \/>\nany  evidence to show that the workman had not reported\t for<br \/>\nduty.\tEven though the slip Ex.  W.2 had been proved by the<br \/>\nworkman,  the  Security Inspector, one Mr.  Shukla, was\t not<br \/>\nexamined  by  the  Appellant.  Further the evidence  of\t the<br \/>\nSenior\tTime  Keeper of the Appellant established  that\t the<br \/>\nworkman had worked for more than 240 days within a period of<br \/>\n12  calender  months  immediately   preceding  the  date  of<br \/>\ntermination  of\t service.   This  was\tproved\tby  a  joint<br \/>\ninspection  report, which was marked as Ext.  45\/A.  It\t was<br \/>\non  the\t basis of this material and this evidence  that\t the<br \/>\nLabour\tCourt  came  to\t the   conclusion  that\t there\t was<br \/>\nretrenchment  without  following the provisions of law.\t  As<br \/>\nthe  workman  was not allowed to join duty,  Standing  Order<br \/>\n9.3.12\tcould  not  have  been\t used  for  terminating\t his<br \/>\nservices.   In\tthis  view of the matter, in our  view,\t the<br \/>\ndecisions  of  the  Labour Court as well as High  Court\t are<br \/>\ncorrect\t and  require  no  interference.   Accordingly,\t the<br \/>\nAppeal\tstands dismissed.  There will, however, be no  order<br \/>\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000 Author: S N Variava Bench: S.N.Variava, S.R.Babu PETITIONER: M\/S. SCOOTERS INDIA LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: M. MOHAMMAD YAQUB &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/11\/2000 BENCH: S.N.Variava, S.R.Babu JUDGMENT: S. N. VARIAVA, J. L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J This Appeal is against an [&hellip;]<\/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-236945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-22T19:45:45+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-22T19:45:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1654,\"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\\\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-22T19:45:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-22T19:45:45+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-22T19:45:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000"},"wordCount":1654,"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\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000","name":"M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-22T19:45:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-scooters-india-ltd-vs-m-mohammad-yaqub-anr-on-21-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Scooters India Ltd vs M. Mohammad Yaqub &amp; Anr on 21 November, 2000"}]},{"@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\/236945","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=236945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}