Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

INDIAN TRIATHLON FEDERATIONRYAND ANR. ETC. versus PONDY TRIATHLON ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC.

Decided
13 January 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 229 · 1997 INSC 23

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

T.P. (C) 749/96.

p. 229, margin G

The transfer petition is dismissed as withdrawn. SLP (C) No. 1527 of 1997.

pp. 229–230, margin H

This petition seeking leave of this Court to file appeal hits been filed directly against the order dated March 5, 1996 passed by the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in Original Suit No. 540 of 1996. We are infor'!led that ap appeal against the decree has already been filed before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Under these circumstances, the question of granting leave and considering the matter on merits by this Court does not now survive. Learned counsel seeks to withdraw the special leave petition.

p. 230, margin A

The special leave petition, under the circumstances, is dismissed as withdrawn. T.P. (C) 13/97.

p. 230, margin C

In relation to the dispute as ~o the membership disqualification etc. by our order dated November 8, 1996 all the disputes were referred to the arbitrators in terms of Rule 19 of the Indian Olympics Association Rules . extracted in that order. Putllllilnt thereto, the disputes stood referred to the arbitrators. Under the circumstances, the appeal bearing S.R. No. 47145 of 1996 pending in the City Civil Co~t, Madras cannot be ordered to be transferred to the Arbitration Board as it has no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the declaratory decree. Instead, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras should dispose of the Appeal on merits. We think that the appropriate procedure would be that a:: ~oon as the arbitrators decide the dispute, the award shall be placed before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras to be taken on record in the pending appeal as additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It would be open to the parties to raise all their contentions de hors the amendment of their pleadings and ·the Principal Judge is directed to consider and dispose of the disputes in the light of the arbitrator's decision or any other contentions raised by the parties in accordance with law.

p. 230, margin C

The transfer petition is disposed of accordingly. T.N.A. Petition disposed of.

p. 230, margin G