Uttarakhand v. Uttar Pradesh: Allocation of THDC Shareholding Case

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.


  • 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


  • 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


  • 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 Number: ORGNL.SUIT No.-000005-000005 / 2012

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *