https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285799 Only the tribunal's final, independently implementable adjudication became binding on publication under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act; contingent directions dependent on future agreement or legislation did not. Scheme 'B' was therefore not enforceable, while Scheme 'A' constituted the binding award. A proceeding seeking enforcement of that adjudicated right was treated as distinct from a fresh inter-State water dispute and was not barred by Article 262 or Section 11. The tribunal's Krishna water allocation was enbloc, not project-wise, except where specific restrictions were expressly stated. On the Almatti dam, construction up to FRL 519.6 m was left open subject to lawful clearances, but raising it to FRL 524.256 m was not supported on the existing record. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:59:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285799 Only the tribunal's final, independently implementable adjudication became binding on publication under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act; contingent directions dependent on future agreement or legislation did not. Scheme 'B' was therefore not enforceable, while Scheme 'A' constituted the binding award. A proceeding seeking enforcement of that adjudicated right was treated as distinct from a fresh inter-State water dispute and was not barred by Article 262 or Section 11. The tribunal's Krishna water allocation was enbloc, not project-wise, except where specific restrictions were expressly stated. On the Almatti dam, construction up to FRL 519.6 m was left open subject to lawful clearances, but raising it to FRL 524.256 m was not supported on the existing record. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285799