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

SWAMY ATMANANDA versus SWAMI BODHANANDA AND ORS.

Decided
13 April 2005
Judges listed
B.P. SINGH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 578 · 2005 INSC 206
Also cited as
  • (2005) 3 SCC 734 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

S.B. SINHA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.15089 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Swami Bodhananda had been allowed. The said writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents therein to give all assistance to the Appellant in taking over management of the institutions specified therein. The said writ p~tition was filed having regard to the judgment of the Civil Court.

p. 579, margin A

A decree passed by the Civil Court must be executed in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition is not the appropriate remedy therefor. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. It, however, goes without saying that the First Respondent herein shall be entitled to execute the decree in accordance with law. D.G. Appeal allowed.

p. 579, margin C