{"id":42633,"date":"2001-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001"},"modified":"2018-06-21T15:31:49","modified_gmt":"2018-06-21T10:01:49","slug":"ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji, N. Santosh Hegde<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 1847  of  1994\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/S. COOPERATIVE CO. LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/04\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nCJI & N. Santosh Hegde\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
    The\t appellant  herein, which is a limited company,\t was
\nrunning\t a  distillery with a bottling plant  at  Nawabganj,
\nSaharanpur, since 1910.\t On 14.7.1980 it made an application
\nto  the Commissioner of Excise, State of U.P., stating\tthat
\nits  distillery\t has  been  operating  annual  licences\t for
\nwholesale  supply of country-liquor to Delhi  Administration
\nfor  many years continuously.  Therefore, it stated that  it
\nwanted\tto  establish  a   bottling  warehouse\tin  district
\nGhaziabad   to\t meet\t its\trequirement   of   supplying
\ncountry-liquor\tto Delhi conveniently and economically.\t  It
\npleaded\t that  due  to\tclose proximity to Delhi  if  it  is
\npermitted to start a bottling unit somewhere in the district
\nof  Ghaziabad, it will have obvious advantages since bulk of
\nits  production\t of country-liquor was being sold in  Delhi.
\nIt  also  stated in the said application that it would\thelp
\nthe  company  to  bid  competitively  in  the  auctions\t and
\nconsequently, the State would also stand to benefit from the
\nexcise\trevenue.  In the said letter, it is stated in  clear
\nterms  that  the  State Government would not stand  to\tlose
\nanything  by  permitting the compnay to start  the  bottling
\nwarehouse in district Ghaziabad because it would continue to
\nbottle\tboth  at Saharanpur as well as at Ghaziabad,  hence,
\nthe  State excise duty from Saharanpur would not suffer.  It
\nwas  also made specific in the said application that it\t was
\nseeking\t a  licence for an additional bottling warehouse  at
\nGhaziabad.\n<\/p>\n
    Pursuant  to  the  said application, the  appellant\t was
\ninformed on 29.7.1980 that it is permitted to bottle country
\nspirit\tunder  bond for exports in a bonded warehouse to  be
\nlicensed  for  suitable\t premises  to be  indicated  by\t the
\nappellant  at Ghaziabad along with various other conditions.
\nThe  said intimation also called upon the appellant to\tmake
\nnecessary arrangements after executing counterpart agreement
\nprescribed  under the Excise Rules and that the amended CL-I
\nlicence\t will  be  issued  by\tthe  Office  of\t the  Excise
\nCommissioner  as  also F.L.-3 licence will be issued by\t the
\nCollector, Ghaziabad.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis stated that for a considerable time the appellant
\nwas  unable to establish the bottling warehouse as permitted
\nunder  the  letter of the Excise Commissioner,\treferred  to
\nabove.\t But  it is an admitted fact that such\ta  warehouse
\nwith  the  permission of the authorities was established  at
\nSahibabad,  district Ghaziabad, and has been functioning for
\na  number of years.  In the meantime, it is noticed that the
\nappellant  faced  certain  difficulties in  running  of\t its
\ndistillery  and bottling warehouse at Saharanpur because  of
\nthe  dispute  in  regard  to   the  property  in  which\t its
\ndistillery  plant was situated at Saharanpur as also because
\nof  the\t provisions  of the Water (Prevention &\t Control  of
\nPollution)  Act, 1974.\tTherefore, sometime in the year 1987
\nthe appellant wrote to the Commissioner of Excise in view of
\nthe above-cited difficulty that it be permitted to shift its
\ndistillery  from  Saharanpur to some other  suitable  place.
\nThe  Government\t as per its letter dated 20.7.1998  informed
\nthe  appellant that it had no objection to shifting the said
\ndistillery  from Saharanpur to some other place, other\tthan
\nSahibabad,  district  Ghaziabad.  Subsequently,\t by  another
\nletter\tof the Government dated 7.9.1988, the appellant\t was
\ninformed  that in supersession of its aforesaid letter dated
\n20.7.1988,  the\t Government  had   decided  to\tapprove\t the
\ntransfer  of the distillery of the appellant to a place near
\nthe existing site in Saharanpur and that it had no objection
\nto  the working of the appellants bottling plant at a place
\nowned  by the appellant in any other district provided\tthis
\ndid not result in reduction in the number of workers working
\nin  the\t district  of Saharanpur.  Consequent to  the  above
\norder  of  the\tGovernment  dated  7.9.1988,  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner  of Excise informed the appellant the  sanction
\nof the Government for shifting of the site of the distillery
\nof  the\t appellant.   This  was done  by  its  letter  dated
\n27.9.1988.   In\t the said letter it was made clear that\t the
\npermission  to shift the distillery at Saharanpur was  given
\non a condition that the shifting shall be done to some place
\nnear   Saharanpur  city\t with\tinstallation  of   necessary
\npollution  control  devices.  Based on this permission,\t the
\nappellant  contends  that it shifted its distillery and\t the
\nattached  bottling  plant  from\t  Nawabganj,  Saharanpur  to
\nYusufpur,  Tapari  Road,  Saharanpur.\tWhen  this  was\t the
\nposition  the  appellant  received a letter  dated  9.7.1991
\nwherein,  according to the appellant, for the first time the
\nappellant  was informed that it was granted a licence to run
\na bottling warehouse at Sahibabad only till such time as the
\nappellant shifted its distillery and bottling plant from the
\nexisting  site\tat  Saharanpur and since that  shifting\t has
\ntaken place, the Government was not willing to continue with
\nthe  temporary\tpermission  given to it to do  the  bottling
\nprocess\t at  Sahibabad,\t district Ghaziabad.   By  the\tsaid
\nletter,\t the appellant was called upon to show cause why the
\nsanction  accorded  to\tit to establish\t a  bottling\/filling
\nplant at Sahibabad be not revoked.\n<\/p>\n
    To the aforesaid letter of the Government, the appellant
\nreplied\t on 7.8.1991 stating that the licence granted to  it
\nto   run  a  bottling\twarehouse  at  Sahibabad,   district
\nGhaziabad,  was totally unconnected with its distillery\t and
\nbottling  plant\t at  Saharanpur and was independent  of\t the
\nsame.\tThey stated that they sought permission and the same
\nwas  granted  to  establish a bottling\tplant  at  Sahibabad
\nbecause\t of its proximity to the State of Delhi and  because
\nof  the\t contract  it had with the Government  of  Delhi  to
\nsupply\thuge  quantity\tof  country-liquor  and\t it  had  no
\nconnection  whatsoever\twith the shifting of the  distillery
\nand  the  bottling  plant  attached to\tthat  distillery  at
\nSaharanpur.   The Government, however, did not agree to this
\nstand of the appellant and by a letter of 6.11.1992 directed
\nthe  appellant to take necessary steps to stop the  bottling
\nplant at Sahibabad and mandated that all further bottling of
\nthe arrack manufactured by the appellant should be done only
\nat the relocated site of its distillery at Saharanpur within
\n3 months from the date of the said order.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appellant  challenged the said cancellation of\t its
\nlicence\t to  run the bottling plant at\tSahibabad,  district
\nGhaziabad,  by way of a writ petition before the High  Court
\nof Judiciature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.  W.P.  No.172\/93.
\nIn the said writ petition, the appellant sought for quashing
\nof  the\t order of the State of U.P.  dated  6.11.1992  along
\nwith certain other reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
    A  Division\t Bench\tof  the\t  High\tCourt  came  to\t the
\nconclusion  that the permission to start the bottling  plant
\nat  Sahibabad was not in addition to the bottling plant\t run
\nby  the\t appellant  at\tSaharanpur but was  as\ta  temporary
\nmeasure\t to facilitate the appellant to shift its distillery
\nand  bottling plant from the existing site at Saharanpur  to
\nanother\t site  at  Nawabganj,  Saharanpur,  the\t High  Court
\nfurther\t held  now that a new distillery and bottling  plant
\nhave  been set up at an appropriate place at Saharanpur, the
\nappellant  cannot be permitted to use the bottling plant  at
\nSahibabad.   On\t that premise the writ petition came  to  be
\ndismissed,  giving 3 months time to the appellant to  shift
\nits  bottling  plant  from Sahibabad to the  new  distillery
\nsituated at Yusufpur, Tapari Road.\n<\/p>\n
    Before  us, Mr.  Shanti Bhushan, learned senior  counsel
\nhas  contended\tthat the application of the appellant  which
\nwas  made  as far back as on 14.7.1980 was based on  certain
\nspecial\t facts inasmuch as the appellant had obtained  major
\ncontracts  for the supply of country-liquor to the State  of
\nDelhi  and in executing the said contract, the appellant was
\nfinding\t difficulty  in transporting such huge\tquantity  of
\narrack bottled from Saharanpur to different places at Delhi.
\nTherefore,   with   an\tintention  of\tmaking\t supply\t  of
\ncountry-liquor to Delhi easier and economical, the appellant
\napproached  the Government with permission to establish only
\na  bottling  plant  so that it could bring  the\t permissible
\nraw-liquor  from its distillery and other permissible places
\nand  convert  the same to potable arrack and bottle them  at
\nits  bottling  plant  closer  to Delhi\twhereby\t apart\tfrom
\npreventing wastage of liquor in transit, the appellant would
\nalso  save  considerable amount of money in  transportation.
\nThis, according to the appellant, is clear from the contents
\nof  its\t application  made to the Government.\tMr.   Shanti
\nBhushan\t also  contended that the permission granted to\t the
\nappellant  pursuant to its application dated 29.7.1980\talso
\nindicates  in  clear  terms  that it  is  a  permission\t for
\nstarting  an  independent bottling unit at the place  to  be
\nnotified  by the appellant in the district of Ghaziabad.  He
\nsays  that  a perusal of this permission shows that  it\t was
\nmeant  for  bottling  arrack to be supplied  at\t Delhi.\t  He
\npointed\t out that the licence given to establish and run the
\nbottling  plant at Sahibabad was an independent licence\t and
\nwas  not  in  substitution of the bottling plant  which\t was
\nbeing  run  at that point of time at Nawabganj,\t Saharanpur.
\nHe  contends  that the belated stand of the Government\tthat
\nthe  bottling  unit  at\t Sahibabad   was  only\ta  temporary
\narrangement  and was meant to be in existence only till\t the
\nshifting  of  the  bottling  plant   at\t Saharanpur  is\t not
\nsupported  by  any  material on record and  is\tcontrary  to
\nfacts.\t It is urged that the appellant has spent huge\tsums
\nof   money  in\testablishing  a\t modern\t bottling  plant  at
\nSahibabad,  district Ghaziabad, because of the volume of its
\nbusiness  with the State of Delhi, and it would be futile to
\ncontend\t that such huge amount for a permanent bottling unit
\nwould  have  been expended by the appellant if\tthe  licence
\ngranted\t to  it was not a permanent one.  He  contends\tthat
\nthis  stand  of the Government that the licence to  run\t the
\nbottling plant at Sahibabad is only transitory in nature, is
\na lame excuse.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tbehalf\tof the State it is contended by Mr.   Subodh
\nMarkandeya,  learned  senior counsel contended that in\tfact
\nthe permission accorded vide letter dated 29.7.1980 was only
\ntemporary  and\tfor  the  limited period  during  which\t the
\nappellant had to shift his distillery and the bottling plant
\nat Saharanpur from Nawabganj, Saharanpur to some other place
\nand  now  that it has re-established its distillery and\t the
\nbottling  plant\t at another place in Saharanpur, it  has  no
\nright to operate the bottling plant at Sahibabad.\n<\/p>\n
    Having  heard learned counsel for the parties in extenso
\nand  perused the records, the only question that arises\t for
\nour  consideration  is\twhether\t  the  appellant  was  given
\nsanction  to  start an independent and\tadditional  bottling
\nwarehouse  at Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad by the competent
\nauthorities  or\t was  it  only\ta  temporary  permission  to
\nfacilitate  the\t appellant to continue with the\t process  of
\nbottling  during shifting of its distillery and the bottling
\nplant from one place to another at Saharanpur.\n<\/p>\n
    We\thave already referred to the application made by the
\nappellant  for grant of permission to start a bottling plant
\nin  district  Ghaziabad on 14.7.1980 so also the  permission
\naccorded  by  the authorities on 29.7.1980.  Basically,\t the
\nnecessary material to decide the above questions is found in
\nthese  two  documents.\tThough we have referred to the\tsaid
\ndocument  in some detail earlier, we think it appropriate to
\nrefer  to  it  at the cost of repetition  once\tagain  while
\ndeciding these question.\n<\/p>\n
    As\tper the letter dated 14.7.1980, the appellant sought
\nfor  licence  for  establishment of  bottling  warehouse  in
\nGhaziabad.   In\t the said letter\/application, the  appellant
\nstated\tthat the company has been awarded annual licence for
\nwholesale  supply of country-liquor to Delhi  Administration
\nfor  the last 7 years continuously.  It also stated for\t the
\ncurrent\t year (referable to the date of the letter) that the
\nDelhi  Administration had granted licences for two brands of
\nliquor,\t namely, country-liquor and Rum 50 degree  strength.
\nIt  also  stated that the State of U.P.\t  earns\t substantial
\nrevenue in the form of export duty on the supplies of liquor
\nmade  by  the  appellant to the Delhi  Administration  which
\naccording  to  the  appellant was to the tune of  crores  of
\nrupees.\t  The  letter  further stated that in  view  of\t the
\nbitter\tcompetition  from distillers in\t other\tneighbouring
\nStates\tlike  Punjab,  Haryana\tand  Himachal  Pradesh,\t the
\nappellant  was finding it economically difficult to  compete
\nwith  other  suppliers\tbecause of the fact that it  had  to
\ntransport  bottled  liquor  from Saharanpur all the  way  to
\nDelhi.\t In the process, it is stated that a large  quantity
\nof  liquor  also gets wasted and the cost of  transportation
\nwas  also becoming uneconomical.  They had pointed out\tthat
\nif  it lost the contract with the Delhi Administration\tthen
\nthe  State  of U.P.  also stood to lose crores of rupees  in
\nexcise\trevenue.  Therefore, the letter specifically  stated
\nthat  it  is in the interest of both the appellant  and\t the
\nU.P.   Government  to permit the appellant to establish\t its
\nadditional  bottling warehouse at Ghaziabad.  They further
\nstated\tthat they will be investing on the establishment  of
\nthe  said warehouse with a long term perspective.  So it  is
\nin  these circumstances that the appellant sought permission
\nfrom  the respondents to establish a new bottling  warehouse
\nat district Ghaziabad.\tThe respondent vide its letter dated
\n29.7.1980  informed  the appellant that they are allowed  to
\nbottle\tcountry spirit under a bond for exports in a  bonded
\nwarehouse  to be licensed at Ghaziabad in suitable  premises
\nprovided by the appellant on the conditions mentioned in the
\nsaid  letter.\tOne  of the  conditions\t enumerated  therein
\nstated\tthat the appellant was permitted to reduce the plain
\ncountry\t spirit\t into  spiced  country spirit  in  the\tsaid
\nbottling  warehouse at Ghaziabad, and that it should provide
\noffice\tfacilities  for\t the excise officials  who  will  be
\nincharge  of  the bonded warehouse attached to the  bottling
\npremises,  and\tthat  the appellant  should  make  necessary
\narrangements to execute counterpart agreement to receive the
\nnecessary  CL-I and FL-III licences from the Commissioner of
\nExcise\tand the Collector, Ghaziabad, respectively.  In\t the
\nbackground  of\twhat  is urged on behalf of  the  State,  it
\nshould\tbe noticed from this letter that there is absolutely
\nno  indication\twhatsoever to show that this  permission  to
\nstart  the  bottling unit at district Ghaziabad\t was  either
\ntemporary or was in lieu of the bottling unit at Saharanpur.
\nNeither the application of the appellant dated 14.7.1980 nor
\nthe sanction of the respondents dated 29.7.1980 has made any
\nreference  whatsoever to the bottling plant attached to\t the
\ndistillery of the appellant at Saharanpur.  From the reasons
\ngiven  by  the appellant for starting the bottling plant  at
\nGhaziabad  and\tthe conditions attached to the\tapproval  of
\nsuch  sanction to start the bottling plant at Ghaziabad,  we
\ncannot\teven  remotely\tcome  to the  conclusion  that\tthis
\npermission  was\t either\t temporary  or was in  lieu  of\t the
\nbottling  plant\t at  Saharanpur.  However,  the\t respondents
\nstrongly  relied  upon letter dated 9.7.1991 wherein it\t had
\ninformed  the  appellant that the permission to establish  a
\nbottling  plant\t was granted vide its letter dated  7.9.1988
\nand  was meant as a temporary measure till the\tconstruction
\nof  a distillery plant at Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad,  by
\nthe  appellant.\t  It was also mentioned in the\tsaid  letter
\nthat  CL-I licence was issued to the appellant for its\tunit
\nat Ghaziabad on the condition that the distillery will shift
\nthe  work from Saharanpur to Sahibabad, district  Ghaziabad.
\nIt  is\ttrue that the letter of 9.7.1991 does state  so\t but
\nthen  that  letter  relies  upon  an  earlier  letter  dated
\n7.9.1988.   A  perusal\tof that letter of  7.9.1988  clearly
\nshows  that  it had nothing to do with the establishment  of
\nthe   bottling\t plant\tat    district\t Ghaziabad.    While
\nappreciating  the  contents of that letter, we will have  to
\nbear  in  mind\tcertain additional facts such as  after\t the
\npermission  was\t granted to the appellant to  establish\t the
\nbottling plant in district Ghaziabad, the appellant seems to
\nhave  run  into\t certain   difficulties\t while\trunning\t its
\ndistillery at Saharanpur.  Therefore, they corresponded with
\nthe  Government\t to  shift  its distillery  along  with\t the
\nexisting bottling plant from Saharanpur to some other place.
\nIt is in that context that the Government wrote letter dated
\n7.9.1988 which was nearly 8 years after the sanction granted
\nto start the bottling warehouse at district Ghaziabad.\tThis
\nletter\tconveying approval of the Government to transfer the
\nsite  of  the  appellants distillery from Saharanpur  to  a
\nplace  near  the existing site in Saharanpur and to  install
\nthe required pollution control devices at the new site, made
\na  reference to the existing bottling plant attached to that
\ndistillery  and\t stated\t that  the Deptt.   would  have\t no
\nobjection  to  the  work of bottling in the  godown  by\t the
\nproducer  in other district (i.e.  Ghaziabad) provided there
\nshall not be lay off in the number of the workers working in
\ndistt.\t Saharanpur. In our opinion, this reference to\tthe
\nbottling  plant\t in  the  letter of 7.9.1988  or  the  place
\nGhaziabad  cannot  be  in  any\tmanner\tconnected  with\t the
\nbottling  plant\t already  permitted  to\t be  established  at
\ndistrict  Ghaziabad in the year 1980 by the Government.\t Per
\ncontra,\t it  is\t clear that this is with  reference  to\t the
\nbottling  plant\t which\twas attached to\t the  distillery  at
\nSaharanpur.   Therefore,  we find that reference  to  letter
\ndated  7.9.1988\t in  the  letter  of  the  Government  dated
\n9.7.1991  is  wholly  misplaced and the respondents  in\t our
\nopinion\t cannot\t make that as the basis for contending\tthat
\nthe  licence  issued  to the appellant\tfor  establishing  a
\nbottling  plant\t at  Ghaziabad was in lieu of  the  bottling
\nplant at Saharanpur or was in fact a temporary one.  In this
\nregard\twe  are\t supported by certain notings found  in\t the
\nnotes  and orders of the Excise Commissioner’s office, U.P.,
\nAllahabad, in File No.\tII Techincal D-19 pages 33, 24, 39 &
\n40  which  was\texhibited as Annexure A-17 before  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t The  notings  in  clear terms show  that  what\t was
\nintended to be granted to the appellant by the letter of the
\nrespondent  dated 29.7.1980 was a permission to start a\t new
\nbottling plant and grant of a new bottling licence.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthis background if we have to consider the  impugned
\norder  of the respondents dated 6.11.1992 it is seen that an
\nentirely  new  stand has been taken on behalf of the  State.
\nThis  letter  the original of which is in Hindi and a  fresh
\ntranslation  thereof  was  provided to us on behalf  of\t the
\nState  inter-alia  states  :  “It is also  made\t clear\tthat
\nduring\tthis  period  you must stop the\t Bottling  plant  at
\nSahibabad  and\tfurther bottling must only be done  at\tyour
\nrelocated  site of your distillery at Saharanpur.  After the
\nexpiry\tof  these  3  months you will not  be  allotted\t any
\nalcohol\t from other distilleries for your bottling plant  at
\nSahibabad.  Actually,  this  was a letter in reply  to\tthe
\ncomplaint  of the appellant on insufficient electric  supply
\nto  its\t distillery at the relocated plant.  In this  letter
\nthe State took the opportunity of informing the appellant of
\nclosing\t its bottling plant at Sahibabad.  By this letter it
\nis clear that the respondents treated the earlier permission
\ngranted\t to the appellant as a temporary permission to\tlast
\ntill  the appellant shifted its distillery and the  bottling
\nplant attached to it.  We have already noticed that from the
\noriginal application and the sanction granted thereof, it is
\nclear  that  the permission to start the bottling  plant  at
\ndistrict  Ghaziabad  which  was\t ultimatley  established  at
\nSahibabad, district Ghaziabad, was not temporary or stand-by
\npermission.   It  was  given  for   a  specific\t purpose  of
\nfacilitating  the appellant to bottle bulk country-liquor at
\nSahibabad so that the appellant could compete with the other
\nbidders\t for supply of country liquor to the State of Delhi.
\nThat  permission  cannot be treated as a  permission  having
\nbeen  granted  as a stand-by permission till  the  appellant
\nshifted\t its distillery and the bottling unit at Saharanpur.
\nWe  are satisfied that the High Court has erred in coming to
\nthe  conclusion that the licence granted to the appellant to
\nestablish  and\trun a bottling unit at\tSahibabad,  district
\nGhaziabad is a temporary one.\n<\/p>\n
    We\thowever make it clear that if the appellant has\t not
\ncomplied  with any of the provisions of the said Excise\t Act
\nand  Rules  or has contravened any of the provisions of\t the
\nAct  or\t any of the terms of the licence, it is open to\t the
\nState to take such action as is legally permissible but this
\nlicence\t to run a bottling warehouse at Sahibabad,  district
\nGhaziabad,  shall  not be cancelled on the ground  that\t the
\nsame was granted as a temporary measure.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.\t The
\norder dated 16.11.1992 is hereby set aside.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001 Author: S Hegde Bench: Cji, N. Santosh Hegde CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1847 of 1994 PETITIONER: M\/S. COOPERATIVE CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/04\/2001 BENCH: CJI & N. Santosh Hegde […]<\/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-42633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001 - 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\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-21T10:01:49+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=\"17 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-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-21T10:01:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3436,\"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-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-21T10:01:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001\"}]},{\"@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. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001 - 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\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-21T10:01:49+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-21T10:01:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001"},"wordCount":3436,"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-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001","name":"M\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-21T10:01:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cooperative-co-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-10-april-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Cooperative Co. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 10 April, 2001"}]},{"@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\/42633","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=42633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42633\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}