Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Facts of The Case

    Uploaded by

    amrinder singh
    The appellant, Amar Nath Chowdhury, was dismissed from his job by the Chairman-Managing Director of Braithwaite and Company. He appealed to the Board of Directors as allowed under company regulations. However, the Chairman-Managing Director participated in the Board's deliberation and the appeal was dismissed without a stated reason. Amar Nath filed a writ petition arguing the Board was biased as the person who dismissed him participated in the appeal. The High Court initially overturned the dismissal but the Division Bench reversed this. The Supreme Court then found the Board was biased and the 'doctrine of necessity' did not apply. It sent the matter back to an unbiased appellate authority to decide with a reasoned order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Facts of The Case

    Uploaded by

    amrinder singh
    39 views2 pages
    The appellant, Amar Nath Chowdhury, was dismissed from his job by the Chairman-Managing Director of Braithwaite and Company. He appealed to the Board of Directors as allowed under company regulations. However, the Chairman-Managing Director participated in the Board's deliberation and the appeal was dismissed without a stated reason. Amar Nath filed a writ petition arguing the Board was biased as the person who dismissed him participated in the appeal. The High Court initially overturned the dismissal but the Division Bench reversed this. The Supreme Court then found the Board was biased and the 'doctrine of necessity' did not apply. It sent the matter back to an unbiased appellate authority to decide with a reasoned order.

    Original Description:

    Case Summary

    Original Title

    Amar Nath v. Braithwaite

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant, Amar Nath Chowdhury, was dismissed from his job by the Chairman-Managing Director of Braithwaite and Company. He appealed to the Board of Directors as allowed under company regulations. However, the Chairman-Managing Director participated in the Board's deliberation and the appeal was dismissed without a stated reason. Amar Nath filed a writ petition arguing the Board was biased as the person who dismissed him participated in the appeal. The High Court initially overturned the dismissal but the Division Bench reversed this. The Supreme Court then found the Board was biased and the 'doctrine of necessity' did not apply. It sent the matter back to an unbiased appellate authority to decide with a reasoned order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views2 pages

    Facts of The Case

    Uploaded by

    amrinder singh
    The appellant, Amar Nath Chowdhury, was dismissed from his job by the Chairman-Managing Director of Braithwaite and Company. He appealed to the Board of Directors as allowed under company regulations. However, the Chairman-Managing Director participated in the Board's deliberation and the appeal was dismissed without a stated reason. Amar Nath filed a writ petition arguing the Board was biased as the person who dismissed him participated in the appeal. The High Court initially overturned the dismissal but the Division Bench reversed this. The Supreme Court then found the Board was biased and the 'doctrine of necessity' did not apply. It sent the matter back to an unbiased appellate authority to decide with a reasoned order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Amar Nath Chowdhury vs Braithwaite And Company Ltd.

    & Ors
    Amar Nath Chowdhury .Appellant
    Vs
    Braithwaite and Company Ltd. & Ors. .Respondents

    Facts of the Case:


    The appellant, Amar Nath was the employee of Braithwaite & Co, a Government of
    India undertaking. He was dismissed from service, through an order of dismissal
    passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (MD) of the Company, who was the
    Disciplinary Authority. Under the regulations of Company, an appeal against an
    order of Disciplinary Authority, lies with the Board of Directors (BOD) of company.
    Amar Nath Chowdhury preferred an appeal before Board. The MD participated in
    deliberation of Board and appeal was dismissed by non-speaking order.
    Amar Nath (Appellant) filed a writ petition, before Calcutta High Court, under Article
    226 of Constitution of India.
    Legal Issues:
    1) Whether the proceedings of the Board was vitiated on account of
    participation of Disciplinary Authority while deciding the appeal preferred by
    the appellant?
    2) Whether an authority can sit in appeal against its own order passed in
    capacity of Disciplinary Authority?
    Contentions by Appellant (Amar Nath Chowdhury)
    1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Braithwaite and Company, was
    disqualified to have presided over and participated in the deliberation of the
    meeting of Board, which heard and dismissed appeal.
    2. The order of Appellant authority was vitiated on account of legal bias.
    3. When an authority has earlier decided and prejudged the matter, he is
    disqualified to sit in appeal against his own decision, as such as appeal would
    be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar and filling of an appeal would be an
    exercise in futility.
    Contentions by Respondent (Braithwaite & Co)
    1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Braithwaite and Company, had
    presided over and participated due to Doctrine of necessity.
    2. The Rule against Biasness is not available, when under the regulations
    framed by the Company, the Disciplinary Authority, who happens to be
    Chairman-cum-Managing Director was required to preside over the meeting
    of Board.
    Decision of High Court (Single Judge)
    The Court set aside the order of removal passed against the appellant.

    Decision of High Court (Division Bench)


    1. The order and judgment of learned single judge was erroneous.
    2. The order passed by single judge was set aside and the writ petition was
    dismissed.
    Decision of Supreme Court
    1. Held that the order of Board was liable to be set aside on ground of biasness.
    2. Held further that the Doctrine of necessity did not save the order passed by
    the Board, as Board can include any officer of Company by excluding
    Chairman and delegating any of its power.
    3. The contention that rule against biasness is not available in present case in
    view of Doctrine of necessity is incorrect and reliance on Doctrine of
    necessity is totally misplaced.
    4. Held that the matter is sent back to Appellate Authority to decide by a
    speaking order in accordance with law.
    5. The Company shall not take any step to realise the amount paid to Appellant,
    Amar Nath, on his superannuation till the matter is decided.

    You might also like