{"id":259163,"date":"2021-12-28T10:00:18","date_gmt":"2021-12-28T04:30:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=259163"},"modified":"2021-12-28T09:19:15","modified_gmt":"2021-12-28T03:49:15","slug":"equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/","title":{"rendered":"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d; SCOTUS dismisses Mississippi\u2019s absolute ownership claim on its underground water"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court of the United States: <\/strong>While addressing inter-state water dispute between Mississippi and Tennessee, the Full Bench held that Mississippi\u2019s ownership approach on its underground water would allow an upstream State to completely cut off flow to a downstream one, which is contrary to equitable apportionment jurisprudence. The Bench expressed,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong><em>Although the transboundary flow might be a mere \u201cone or two inches per day,\u201d that amounts to over 35 million gallons of water per day, and over ten billion gallons per year. So the speed of the flow, at least in the context of this case, does not place the aquifer beyond equitable apportionment.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The City of Memphis sits on the banks of the Mississippi River in the southwest corner of. Mississippi marks the City\u2019s southern border of the Tennessee and hundreds of feet beneath Memphis lies one of the City\u2019s most valuable resources: the Middle Claiborne Aquifer.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>The Beginning of Dispute<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mississippi invoked original jurisdiction of the Court alleging that Tennessee\u2019s pumping had taken hundreds of billions of gallons of water that were once located beneath Mississippi with regard to which it sought at least $615 million in damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Additionally, Mississippi claimed an absolute \u201cownership\u201d right to all groundwater beneath its surface\u2014even after that water has crossed its borders.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mississippi argued that the Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division\u2019s (MLGW ) pumping had altered the historic flow of groundwater within the Aquifer. Further, Mississippi conceded that though some water naturally flows from the part of the aquifer beneath Mississippi to the part beneath Tennessee but MLGW\u2019s pumping had substantially hastened this existing flow, allowing Memphis to take billions of gallons of groundwater that otherwise would have remained under Mississippi for thousands of years.\u00a0 Consequently, it had to drill its own wells deeper to access the aquifer, and use more electricity to pump water to the surface.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Doctrine of Equitable Apportionment <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The doctrine of equitable apportionment is invoked for allocation of a shared water resource between two or more States. (<em>Colorado v. New Mexico<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/W3YKBI7E\">1982 SCC OnLine US SC 219<\/a>) It stands alone as the federal common-law principle for disputes over interstate water. The doctrine\u2019s <em>\u201cguiding principle\u201d<\/em> is that States <em>\u201chave an equal right to make a reasonable use\u201d<\/em> of a shared water resource. Florida <em>v. Georgia<\/em>, <a href=\"2021%20SCC%20OnLine%20US%20SC%2018\">2021 SCC OnLine US SC 18<\/a><\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Application of the Doctrine<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This Court has never before held that an interstate aquifer is subject to equitable apportionment, so Mississippi\u2019s suit implicated a question of first impression.\u00a0 It was also pertinent that the Middle Claiborne Aquifer contains water that flows naturally between the States. Observing that all the cases of equitable apportionment had concerned such water (<em>Kansas v. Colorado<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/8Sxe7n16\">1907 SCC OnLine US SC 131<\/a>), or fish that live in it (<em>Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/u43Av7EE\">1983 SCC OnLine US SC 143<\/a>), the Bench rejected Mississippi\u2019s suggestion that the Middle Claiborne Aquifer was distinguishable from interstate rivers and streams because its natural flow is \u201cextremely slow\u201d. The Bench stated, \u201c<em>we have long applied equitable apportionment even to streams that run dry from time to time\u201d.<\/em> (<em>Kansas v. Colorado<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/8Sxe7n16\">1907 SCC OnLine US SC 131<\/a>)<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>On Plea of Sovereign Ownership<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mississippi contended that it has sovereign ownership of all groundwater beneath its surface, so equitable apportionment ought not apply. Rejecting the aforesaid argument, the Bench stated that it is certainly <strong>true that \u201ceach State has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other waters\u201d but such jurisdiction does not confer unfettered \u201cownership or control\u201d<\/strong> of flowing interstate waters themselves. And when a water resource is shared between several States, each one \u201chas an interest which should be respected by the other.\u201d (<em>Wyoming v. Colorado<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/8y36N60K\">1922 SCC OnLine US SC 129<\/a>). Thus, the Bench denied the proposition that a State may exercise exclusive ownership or control of interstate \u201cwaters flowing within her boundaries.\u201d<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Verdict<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the light of the above, the Bench held that waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment. Accordingly, Mississippi\u2019s request for certiorari was declined. [Mississippi v. Tennessee, 595 U. S. ____ (2021), decided on 22-11-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\">Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of the United States: While addressing inter-state water dispute between Mississippi and Tennessee, the Full Bench held that Mississippi\u2019s ownership <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[48180,48178,48177,48176,48179,30735,9691],"class_list":["post-259163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-equitable-apportionment","tag-mississippi","tag-natural-resources","tag-supreme-court-inter-state-dispute","tag-tennessee","tag-usa","tag-water-dispute"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d; SCOTUS dismisses Mississippi\u2019s absolute ownership claim on its underground water | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d; SCOTUS dismisses Mississippi\u2019s absolute ownership claim on its underground water\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-12-28T04:30:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/\",\"name\":\"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d; SCOTUS dismisses Mississippi\u2019s absolute ownership claim on its underground water | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-12-28T04:30:18+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d; SCOTUS dismisses Mississippi\u2019s absolute ownership claim on its underground water\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d; SCOTUS dismisses Mississippi\u2019s absolute ownership claim on its underground water | SCC Times","description":"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d; SCOTUS dismisses Mississippi\u2019s absolute ownership claim on its underground water","og_description":"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-12-28T04:30:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/","name":"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d; SCOTUS dismisses Mississippi\u2019s absolute ownership claim on its underground water | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2021-12-28T04:30:18+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/equitable-apportionment-applicable-even-where-the-natural-flow-is-extremely-low\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Equitable Apportionment applicable even where the natural flow is \u201cextremely low\u201d; SCOTUS dismisses Mississippi\u2019s absolute ownership claim on its underground water"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":190124,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/16\/cauvery-water-dispute-karnataka-gets-additional-14-75-tmc-water-light-availability-groundwater-tamil-nadu\/","url_meta":{"origin":259163,"position":0},"title":"Cauvery Water Dispute: Karnataka gets additional 14.75 TMC of water in light of availability of groundwater in Tamil Nadu","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Deciding the Cauvery Water Dispute that reportedly travels beyond 100 years, the bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar, JJ awarded to the State of Karnataka an additional 14.75 TMC of water, i.e., 10 TMC, on account of availability of ground water in Tamil\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203912,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/17\/a-decision-is-an-authority-for-what-it-actually-decides-final-awards-passed-under-the-land-acquisition-act-not-be-reopened-casually\/","url_meta":{"origin":259163,"position":1},"title":"A decision is an authority for what it actually decides: final awards passed, under the Land Acquisition Act, not be reopened casually","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 17, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., dismissed writ petitions filed against the order of the trial judge, whereby petitioner\u2019s application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed. The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the executing court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":161564,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/05\/state-commission-cannot-re-determine-tariff-of-companies-if-already-determined-by-central-commission-under-s-79-of-electricity-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":259163,"position":2},"title":"State Commission cannot re-determine tariff of companies if already determined by Central Commission under S. 79 of Electricity Act","author":"Saba","date":"October 5, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Appellate Tribunal for Electricity: While deciding an appeal, a two-Member Bench comprising of Ranjana P. Desai, J. (Chairperson) and I. J. Kapoor, Technical Member, inter alia held that the State Commission overstepped its jurisdiction while limiting the liability of PSPCL towards the appellant and exceeded the scope of the order\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Electricity1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Electricity1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Electricity1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Electricity1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Electricity1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":91551,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/09\/cauvery-dispute-sections-62-and-11-of-inter-state-river-water-disputes-act-1956-does-not-bar-the-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court-under-article-136\/","url_meta":{"origin":259163,"position":3},"title":"Cauvery Dispute: Sections 6(2) and 11 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 9, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the Cauvery Water Dispute where the issue relating to referring the matter to the Tribunal was concerned, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ said that once a water dispute, as defined under Article 262(1) read with provisions of the Inter-State River\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":193644,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/03\/mahanadi-water-disputes-tribunal-constituted-inter-state-river-disputes-act-1956\/","url_meta":{"origin":259163,"position":4},"title":"Mahanadi Water Disputes: Tribunal to be constituted under Inter-State River Disputes Act, 1956","author":"Saba","date":"March 3, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"The Union Cabinet has approved the proposal for adjudication of dispute on Mahanadi River Waters. The Tribunal shall determine water sharing among basin States on the basis of the overall availability of water in the complete Mahanadi basin, contribution of each State, the present utilization of water resources in each\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223088,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/10\/uk-sc-court-has-jurisdiction-to-grant-equitable-relief-from-forfeiture-of-rights-to-make-specific-use-of-neighbouring-land-granted-in-a-perpetual-licence\/","url_meta":{"origin":259163,"position":5},"title":"UK SC | Court has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief from forfeiture of rights to make specific use of neighbouring land granted in a perpetual licence","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 10, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"United Kingdom Supreme Court: A Full Bench of Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden and Lord Kitchin, JJ. dismissed the instant appeal on the ground that the license conferred a possessory right and there is no basis on which Court should interfere with the Judgment of lower court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259163","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=259163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259163\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}