JUSTICE AMARENDRA NATH SEN
Author:- Ankita Karn, REVA University
The Supreme Court is the Apex Court of India. This is the highest authority of the country for the judicial seekers in order to get justice. This consists of the Chief Justice of India along with 30 Judges. Justice Amarendra Nath Sen is a Bengali Jurist, he also served as a Judge in the Supreme Court and as the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.
EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION
Justice Amarendra Nath Sen was born on October 1st, 1920. He obtained his high school education from Saidabad Hariginge H.E. School which is in Khagra, Murshidabad up to 1936, then he went to Behrampore K.N. College up to 1938. He went to Scottish Church College up to 1949 and did law from University Law College up to 1943 and Barrister-at-Law from Inner Temple (The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, commonly known as Inner Temple, is one of the four Inns of Court in London. To be called to the Bar and practice as a barrister in England and Wales, an individual must belong to one of these Inns).
After completing his education he was enrolled as an advocate at Calcutta High Court in January 1947. He was involved mainly in civil cases in Calcutta High Court. He was appointed as the additional judge at Calcutta High Court on November 15, 1965. Then he was appointed as the permanent Judge on July 25, 1966, and the Chief Justice on December 26, 1979. He was also appointed as the Supreme Court Judge on January 28, 1981, and retired on September 30, 1985.
Union of India and Others v. Godfrey Philips India Limited
A bench of Supreme Court which consist Justices P.N Bhagwati, R.S Pathak and Amarendranath Sen considered in a scintillating fashion the doctrine of promissory estoppel, by the review of earlier cases, in the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Limited, (1985) 4 SCC 369: AIR 1986 SC 806: (1986).
State of Punjab And Others v. Ajudhia Nath And Another
In the State of Punjab v. Ajudhia Nath AIR 1981 SC 1374, the Supreme Court considered the case of auction-sale and it was also held that the natural justice principle is not required to be complied with when the demand of the State is merely for payment of money.