Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The High Court itself has, however, treated the evidence of this witness Arunachalam as not being such as would be safe to be acted upon. He was the person directly responsible for having to attend to the repairs of the roof in proper time, if the repeated allegations of misuse and the consequential damage to the roof happened in fact to be true. He may have been, therefore,--as the High Court thought--interested in minimising the damage and denying responsibility in view of the persistent complaints made by the firm remaining unheeded by himself or by his department for a considerably long time before he actually inspected and made his report, Ex. 60.