In a landmark case before the Supreme Court of India, the State of Uttarakhand has filed a suit against the State of Uttar Pradesh concerning the allocation of THDC shareholding. The suit, seeking various reliefs and declarations, has undergone a series of proceedings, culminating in a recent judgment. This case has wide-ranging implications and has sparked significant legal debate. Stay informed about the Uttarakhand v. Uttar Pradesh case as it unfolds in the highest court of the land.
Facts
- The State of Uttarakhand filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution for various reliefs.
- The suit sought a declaration that the allocation of 25% shareholding in THDC to the State of U.P. is void from 09.11.2000.
- It also requested a declaration that the State of Uttarakhand is the rightful owner of the shareholding.
- Mandatory and permanent injunction to allocate the shareholding of THDC in favor of the State of Uttarakhand was requested.
- Furthermore, the suit sought allocation of dividends from 09.11.2000 until the disposal of the suit to the State of Uttarakhand.
- Notice of the suit received by the State of U.P. on 23.10.2013.
- Matter referred to the concerned department.
- No steps were taken by the State of U.P. upon receiving the notice.
- Plaintiff resisted the application for recall of the order and filed a reply on 08.06.2016.
- On 06.02.2017, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the State of U.P. requesting the application to be allowed with payment of costs.
- Matter listed on multiple dates for the application of recall of the order.
- THDC was notified of the proceedings, leading to further steps being taken by the State of U.P.
- I.A. No 3/2014 filed by State of U.P. on 09.04.2014 seeking recall of the order dated 16.12.2013.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Claim for Loss of Profit in Delayed Contract
Analysis
- The State of Uttarakhand resisted the application for negligence on the part of State of U.P.
- The State of U.P. cannot be accused of negligence after the application was filed on 09.04.2014.
- Notice of the application was issued only on 09.04.2016.
- State of Uttarakhand incurred legal costs of Rs. 57,48,791/- towards payment of counsel’s fee for 11 hearings.
- Though State of U.P. was tardy in ensuring timely appearance, prompt steps were taken once officials were made aware of the suit and order.
- I.A. No 3/2014 was listed and noticed issued for the first time on 07.09.2015.
- State of U.P. defaulted in entering appearance and was set down ex parte by order dated 16.12.2013.
- The entire blame for the delay in dealing with the application and the costs cannot be attributed solely to the State of U.P.
- The circumstances suggest a shared responsibility for the delay and costs incurred.
- It is not appropriate to place all the blame on one party in this situation.
Also Read: Public Declaration Requirement in Marriage under Hindu Marriage Act
Decision
- Plaintiff sought adjournment on two occasions – 27.09.2016 and 06.05.2019.
- State of U.P. permitted to file its Written Statement within four weeks.
- Plaintiff’s replication, if any, to be filed within eight weeks.
- Parties to file their documents in the meanwhile.
- Interlocutory Application allowed with State of U.P. paying costs of Rs. 30,00,000/- to State of Uttarakhand within four weeks.
- I.A. No 3/2014 allowed with costs specified.
Also Read: OCI Cardholders’ Rights and Retroactive Notifications
Case Title: STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA
Case Number: ORGNL.SUIT No.-000005-000005 / 2012
