cites: 184508403

The Financial Commissioner ... vs Harbhajan Singh on 22 March, 1996

In Financial Commissioner Punjab v. Harbhajan Singh (supra), the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner was set aside on the ground that he cannot sit over his own earlier order as Settlement Officer.

Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 23 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 53835

Manak Lal vs Dr. Prem Chand on 6 February, 1957

This was on the basis of the Principle of apprehension of a bias. Their Lordships observed in the case of Manek Lal v. Prem Chand reported in AIR 1957 SC 425 wherein it was observed:

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 255 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Amar Nath Chowdhury vs Braithwaite And Company Ltd. & Ors on 11 January, 2002

Similarly, in the case of Amar Nath Chowdhury v. Braithwaite & Co. Ltd. reported in 2002 (2)SCC 290 it was observed that Managing Director dismissing an employee cannot sit in the Board of Directors to hear the employee's appeal. Doctrine of necessity was inapplicable as the Board could have delegated its appellate power to a committee.

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 41 - V N Khare - Full Document

Dr. S.C. Mahajan & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 April, 2014

In Suman Bala v. Union of India (supra) also, the appeal preferred by the appellant was heard by the same officer who was the Disciplinary Authority which was held to be improper.

Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - R Shakdher - Full Document