SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 237

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies and Others – Appellants
Versus
Gurdeep Singh Narval (Dead) through LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8743 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 8746 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 8745 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 8744 of 2013
Decided On : 10-03-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv. Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Adv. Mr. Jagdeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Navneet Gupta, Adv. Dr. Riju Raj S Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Manoj Sagar, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.N. Gupta, AOR Mrs. Bharti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pushp Raj Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Mr. Umang Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma-v, Adv. Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh-ii, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Aashna Gill, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR

Courts must interpret legal fictions strictly, ensuring they do not exceed the legislative intent or conflict with existing statutory frameworks, particularly in cases of state reorganization.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 - Section 87 - Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 - Sections 103 and 93 - Question of legal status of Sugarcane Cooperative Societies on bifurcation of State - Societies not deemed Multi-State due to restrictions on their area of operation and objectives. (Paras 1, 13, 24, 26)

(B) Legal Interpretation - Legal fictions must be confined to their purpose; cannot override statutory provisions. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the High Court's ruling that certain cooperative societies were Multi-State Cooperative Societies, since reorganization under the Reorganisation Act had already occurred based on geographical criteria. Key modifications were made to the bylaws of these societies, limiting their operations to a single state.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the societies in question could not be classified as Multi-State Cooperative Societies, as their functions and objectives were restricted to one state and reorganization had already been carried out appropriately.

Issues: The core issues revolved around the applicability of Section 103 of the 2002 Act and whether reorganization under the Reorganisation Act had validly isolated the societies to a single state status.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that Section 103's implications were conditional and did not apply because the societies' operational scope and objectives were only state-specific, thus validly reorganized under the Reorganisation Act.

Result: Appeals allowed and High Court's judgment quashed.

Table of Content
1. question of legal status of cooperative societies post-reorganisation (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural history and administrative actions affecting society status (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments regarding the interpretation of section 103 of the 2002 act (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. understanding the reorganisation act and its implications on cooperative societies (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. amendments to 2002 act in context of constitutional provisions for cooperatives (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. considerations for operational territory of cooperative societies (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
7. legal fictions under the 2002 act and their limitations (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
8. final determination on the legal status of the societies (Para 25 , 26)
9. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. These batch of appeals raise an important question regarding legal status of two Sugarcane Cooperative Societies on bifurcation of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and interplay between Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Reorganisation Act) and Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (2002 Act). The core issue is whether Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur, situated in Udham Singh Nagar, District of Uttarakhand could be treated as Multi-State Cooperative Societies by operation of Section 103 of 2002 Act, despite their prior reorganisation and confinement of their area of operations to a single State, under the statutory framework governing State reorganisation.

2. For the facility of reference, facts from C.A. No. 8743 of 2013 are being referred to. Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society, Bajpur (Society) is a Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society whose area of operation originally included 96 villages in Bajpur and 34 villages in Suar, District Rampur in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. The Society was registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (1965 Act). The Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, on 10.07.1998 passed an order superseding the managing committee of the society. The District Cane Officer, Udham Singh Nagar assumed the charge of the society, as its administrator.

3. The Parliament enacted the Reorganisation Act, by which the State of Uttaranchal (‘now Uttarakhand’) was created with effect from 09.11.2000. On reorganisation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, 34 Revenue Villages, including village Suar, fell into the territory of the successor State of Uttar Pradesh and the villages of Tehsil Bajpur fell into the successor State of Uttaranchal. Thus, the area of operation of society spanned over the two states, namely State of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand.

4. A meeting between the officers of State of U.P. and Officers of State of Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001, in which it was decided that in respect of the societies which have assumed the status of a multi-state cooperative society, a meeting of General Body shall be convened for reconstitution of such societies and with consent of both the States, the proposal shall be sent for their reorganization to the Central Registrar, Multi-State Cooperative Societies. Accordingly, a meeting of the General Body of the Society was convened on 03.04.2001 in which unanimously a resolution for reorganisation of the Society was passed. The Cane Commissioner/Registrar Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh on 03.11.2001 made appropriate amendments in bye-law no. 3 of the Society.

5. The Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad by an order dated 14.05.2002 directed deletion of names of 34 villages including the village Suar in District Rampur, from the area of operation of the society and ordered inclusion of the said villages in Sugarcane Cooperative Society Ltd. Suar, District Rampur, U.P. Consequently, the area of the operation of the society was curtailed and restricted to the areas which fell in the Territory of State of Uttaranchal.

6. The respondent No. 1’s name, who is a cane grower of village, Suar, was not included in the list of members of the soc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top