<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (4) TMI 449 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191567</link>
    <description>A statutory reference to a water disputes tribunal can include interim applications where the originating complaint itself alleges continuing injury and urgent need for relief. Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act exclude court jurisdiction over referred water disputes, but the Supreme Court noted that jurisdiction and the scope of the reference remain open to judicial interpretation. On the facts traced to the State&#039;s complaint, the interim directions sought arose from the same referred dispute and were not outside the reference merely because they were styled as miscellaneous applications. The tribunal was therefore required to entertain them and decide them on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 12:34:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 449 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191567</link>
      <description>A statutory reference to a water disputes tribunal can include interim applications where the originating complaint itself alleges continuing injury and urgent need for relief. Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act exclude court jurisdiction over referred water disputes, but the Supreme Court noted that jurisdiction and the scope of the reference remain open to judicial interpretation. On the facts traced to the State&#039;s complaint, the interim directions sought arose from the same referred dispute and were not outside the reference merely because they were styled as miscellaneous applications. The tribunal was therefore required to entertain them and decide them on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191567</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>