Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court Decision on Water Dispute & States Reorganisation Act</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, dismissed the applicability of Article 262 and Section 11 of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in view of Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.3. Applicability of Article 363 of the Constitution.4. Referral of disputes to Arbitration.5. Safety concerns and environmental degradation due to raising the water level of the reservoir from 136 ft. to 142 ft.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956:The contention that Section 108 is outside the legislative competence of Parliament as it falls under Entry 17 of the State List was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the power of Parliament under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution is paramount and not subject to Article 246 and Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule. Section 108, which continues agreements between predecessor States, is a supplemental, incidental, and consequential provision necessary for effectuating proper reorganization of States. The Court upheld the validity of Section 108, stating that the new State cannot unilaterally affect such agreements through legislation or executive action.2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in view of Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956:The Supreme Court held that the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala is not a 'water dispute' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. The dispute is about the safety of the dam on increasing the water level, not about the use, distribution, or control of inter-State river waters. Therefore, Article 262 and Section 11 of the Act do not bar the Court's jurisdiction in this matter.3. Applicability of Article 363 of the Constitution:The Court ruled that Article 363, which bars jurisdiction over disputes arising from treaties or agreements entered into before the Constitution, does not apply to ordinary agreements such as lease agreements for land and water use. The agreement in question continues under Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, and thus, the Court's jurisdiction is not barred.4. Referral of disputes to Arbitration:The arbitration clause in the lease deed was deemed irrelevant to the present dispute, which concerns the safety of the dam on raising the water level. The Supreme Court found no substance in the contention that the matter should be referred to arbitration, as the issue is not about the rights, duties, or obligations under the agreement but about the safety of the dam after strengthening measures.5. Safety concerns and environmental degradation due to raising the water level of the reservoir from 136 ft. to 142 ft.:The Court addressed the safety concerns by referring to various expert reports, which found the apprehensions of Kerala to be baseless. The reports indicated that the dam is safe and that raising the water level to 142 ft. would not jeopardize safety. The environmental impact was also examined, with reports suggesting that raising the water level would not adversely affect the flora and fauna but would instead improve the environment and wildlife habitat. The Court permitted Tamil Nadu to carry out further strengthening measures as suggested by the Central Water Commission (CWC) and restrained Kerala from causing any obstruction. The water level of the Mullaperiyar dam was allowed to be raised to 142 ft., and further strengthening of the dam was permitted.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, dismissed the applicability of Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, and ruled out the relevance of Article 363 and arbitration. The Court permitted raising the water level to 142 ft., subject to further strengthening measures and cooperation from Kerala.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found