https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284499 Article 262 and Section 11 bar courts from exercising jurisdiction over the original adjudication of an inter-State water dispute, but that exclusion does not extend to a civil appeal by special leave against a tribunal's final decision after adjudication. Article 136 was treated as conferring plenary special leave jurisdiction, and no clear constitutional or statutory language was found to exclude it in this context. Section 6(2) was construed as a legal fiction giving the tribunal's decision the force of a Supreme Court decree for enforcement, not as creating an actual decree of the Court or barring appellate scrutiny. The civil appeals were therefore held maintainable and the objection to maintainability was rejected. en-us Fri, 09 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284499 Article 262 and Section 11 bar courts from exercising jurisdiction over the original adjudication of an inter-State water dispute, but that exclusion does not extend to a civil appeal by special leave against a tribunal's final decision after adjudication. Article 136 was treated as conferring plenary special leave jurisdiction, and no clear constitutional or statutory language was found to exclude it in this context. Section 6(2) was construed as a legal fiction giving the tribunal's decision the force of a Supreme Court decree for enforcement, not as creating an actual decree of the Court or barring appellate scrutiny. The civil appeals were therefore held maintainable and the objection to maintainability was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284499