Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
K.Sankaran ...Revision vs The General Manager cites

K.Govindasamy vs Ms.A.Rajamani on 24 June, 2013

10.The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the Hon'ble Division Bench judgments of our High Court reported in 1989-2 - L.W.330 (Karuppiah.P. Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies), 2013-4-L.W.249 ( K.Govindasamy Vs. Ms.A.Rajamani & others) and another Division Bench judgement of our High Court reported in (2014) 3 Mad LJ 575 ( P.Elango Vs. M.R.K.Co-operative Sugar Mills) to impress upon the Court that when the duties and responsibilities have not been notified, the question of negligence, much less willful negligence cannot be established. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had further contended that the suitcase containing Rs.12,00,000/- collected from the Branch Officer was left in the Jeep at the request of the Jeep driver. Missing of the said suitcase was found only when they reached the Head-Office after collecting Rs.11,00,000/- from the other branch. Therefore, the Jeep driver was the only person who was in the custody of the cash. After exonerating the said Jeep driver, the liability cannot be mulcted upon the Assistant who had entered into another branch for collection.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - K R Baabu - Full Document

P. Karuppiah vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 19 August, 2021

10.The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the Hon'ble Division Bench judgments of our High Court reported in 1989-2 - L.W.330 (Karuppiah.P. Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies), 2013-4-L.W.249 ( K.Govindasamy Vs. Ms.A.Rajamani & others) and another Division Bench judgement of our High Court reported in (2014) 3 Mad LJ 575 ( P.Elango Vs. M.R.K.Co-operative Sugar Mills) to impress upon the Court that when the duties and responsibilities have not been notified, the question of negligence, much less willful negligence cannot be established. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had further contended that the suitcase containing Rs.12,00,000/- collected from the Branch Officer was left in the Jeep at the request of the Jeep driver. Missing of the said suitcase was found only when they reached the Head-Office after collecting Rs.11,00,000/- from the other branch. Therefore, the Jeep driver was the only person who was in the custody of the cash. After exonerating the said Jeep driver, the liability cannot be mulcted upon the Assistant who had entered into another branch for collection.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A D Chandira - Full Document
1