https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298239 Parliament's power under Articles 3 and 4 was treated as wide enough to continue inter-State project agreements through Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, so the competence challenge failed. The dispute was held outside the water-dispute bar in Article 262 and Section 11 because it concerned dam safety and permissible reservoir level, not inter-State river water allocation, and Article 363 did not apply to an ordinary project arrangement. The arbitration clause was also found inapplicable. On expert material, the Court accepted that strengthening measures made an interim rise to 142 ft. safe and found no established environmental or sanctuary impact, so the higher level and further works were permitted. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:51:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298239 Parliament's power under Articles 3 and 4 was treated as wide enough to continue inter-State project agreements through Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, so the competence challenge failed. The dispute was held outside the water-dispute bar in Article 262 and Section 11 because it concerned dam safety and permissible reservoir level, not inter-State river water allocation, and Article 363 did not apply to an ordinary project arrangement. The arbitration clause was also found inapplicable. On expert material, the Court accepted that strengthening measures made an interim rise to 142 ft. safe and found no established environmental or sanctuary impact, so the higher level and further works were permitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298239