← All recent judgments
Supreme Court of India10 March 20262026 INSC 216

Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies v. Gurdeep Singh Narval

Bench of 2 · Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Alok Aradhe

Why it matters

Listen

Advocates advising cooperative societies in States carved out of erstwhile Uttar Pradesh — or any reorganised State — can now cite this judgment to resist claims that Section 103 of the 2002 Act automatically confers Multi-State status: the deeming fiction is displaced where reorganisation was completed under the Reorganisation Act and the society's objects are single-State in character, and Naresh Shankar Srivastava (2009) 16 SCC 157 is expressly distinguished and confined to the 1984 Act.

Summary

These batch civil appeals arose from a dispute over the legal status of two Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies — Bajpur and Gadarpur — situated in Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. The core question was whether these societies automatically became Multi-State Cooperative Societies by operation of the deeming fiction in Section 103 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, notwithstanding that both States had already taken concrete steps to reorganise and confine them to single-State operation before the 2002 Act came into force. The High Court of Uttarakhand, by its judgment dated 14.03.2007, had held that the societies were Multi-State Cooperative Societies and that elections conducted by the State Registrar were bad in law.

The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos. 8743, 8744 and 8745 of 2013 and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 8746 of 2013, quashing the High Court's judgment dated 14.03.2007 and upholding the order dated 05.09.2006. The Court held that Section 103 of the 2002 Act neither operates automatically nor can it retrospectively invalidate completed reorganisation actions taken under Sections 87 and 93 of the Reorganisation Act. Applying the principle of harmonious construction, the Court restricted the operation of the deeming fiction in Section 103 to cases where no prior reorganisation action had been taken and where the society's objects genuinely extended to more than one State.

The Court relied on and applied State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary and Others v. Milkiyat Singh and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2802, which had emphasised the conceptual distinction between 'objects' and 'area of operation', holding that residence of members or geographical spread of activity cannot substitute the statutory requirement that the principal objects themselves must be multi-State in character. On scrutiny of the bye-laws of both societies, the Court found that their objects were confined to safeguarding local canegrowers' interests with no intention to serve members across State boundaries. The earlier decision in Naresh Shankar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 157 was held not applicable, as it dealt with the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and had not considered the impact of Sections 87 and 93 of the Reorganisation Act. The Court directed State Cooperative authorities to conduct elections of the societies expeditiously.

Key principle

The deeming fiction under Section 103 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 is neither automatic nor universal — it does not apply where the successor States have already taken completed action to reorganise a cooperative society under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, and where the society's bye-laws confine its principal objects to a single State; residence of members or geographical spread of activity cannot substitute the requirement that the principal objects themselves must be multi-State in character.

Holding

Allowed (Civil Appeal Nos. 8743, 8744 and 8745 of 2013) — Section 103 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 cannot retrospectively invalidate completed reorganisation actions taken under Sections 87 and 93 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, and societies whose bye-laws confine their objects to a single State cannot be treated as Multi-State Cooperative Societies.

Statutes invoked

  • Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 · 103
  • Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 · 87
  • Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 · 93
  • U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 · 1965
  • Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 · Part IX-B
  • Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 · 103 (as amended by Act No.11 of 2023)

Practice areas

civilconstitutionallabour
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.