https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285800 A suit seeking completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal was not barred as a referable water dispute because the core grievance concerned enforcement of a binding obligation to complete canal construction, not adjudication of river water rights. The Court held that the earlier allocation of Haryana's share and the settlement framework separately preserved the canal-completion obligation, so Article 262 and Section 11 did not exclude jurisdiction. It further held that the agreements and governmental arrangements created an enforceable duty to finish the canal, and granted a mandatory injunction directing completion, with the Union of India required to secure implementation if Punjab failed to act. en-us Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jan 2020 16:12:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285800 A suit seeking completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal was not barred as a referable water dispute because the core grievance concerned enforcement of a binding obligation to complete canal construction, not adjudication of river water rights. The Court held that the earlier allocation of Haryana's share and the settlement framework separately preserved the canal-completion obligation, so Article 262 and Section 11 did not exclude jurisdiction. It further held that the agreements and governmental arrangements created an enforceable duty to finish the canal, and granted a mandatory injunction directing completion, with the Union of India required to secure implementation if Punjab failed to act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285800