<?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>2000 (4) TMI 841 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285799</link>
    <description>Scheme B is not an enforceable water-disputes tribunal decision because its implementation was not ordered and it depended on a monitoring authority to be established by agreement or legislation. The notified award allocates water to States en bloc, subject to express restrictions, rather than imposing general project-wise limits. The lower riparian State may use surplus flows but has no right to them and cannot use them through permanent large-scale projects or reservoirs. No general requirement exists for other riparian States&#039; prior consultation or consent, although central and statutory clearances remain necessary. Original jurisdiction over inter-State disputes extends to enforcement suits but not the unadjudicated submergence grievance concerning river control. The proposed dam may be constructed up to 519.6 metres subject to clearances; a greater height remains for a future water-disputes tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:59:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 841 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285799</link>
      <description>Scheme B is not an enforceable water-disputes tribunal decision because its implementation was not ordered and it depended on a monitoring authority to be established by agreement or legislation. The notified award allocates water to States en bloc, subject to express restrictions, rather than imposing general project-wise limits. The lower riparian State may use surplus flows but has no right to them and cannot use them through permanent large-scale projects or reservoirs. No general requirement exists for other riparian States&#039; prior consultation or consent, although central and statutory clearances remain necessary. Original jurisdiction over inter-State disputes extends to enforcement suits but not the unadjudicated submergence grievance concerning river control. The proposed dam may be constructed up to 519.6 metres subject to clearances; a greater height remains for a future water-disputes tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>