Personal liability of company employee for deposit transaction rejected where he merely signed receipt on the company's behalf.

A company employee was found not personally liable for the company's deposit transaction merely because he signed the deposit receipt on the company's behalf. The court noted that the transaction was between the depositor and the company, and that personal civil liability could arise only if there was material showing the employee had received or been entrusted with the money, or occupied a position such as director, proprietor, partner, or other role creating personal responsibility. The revisional jurisdiction under section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act was described as broader than section 115 CPC, but on the merits the decree against the employee could not be sustained and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decree passed against the petitioner could be sustained when he was found to be only an employee of the company and had signed the deposit receipt on behalf of the company.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act permits a broader re-examination of the decree than the limited scope of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the merits, the decisive question was whether the petitioner could be personally fastened with civil liability for the deposit transaction. The record showed that the transaction was between the depositor and the company, and that the petitioner was no more than an officer or employee. Mere signature on the deposit receipt on behalf of the company was held insufficient to make him personally liable in the absence of material showing that he received or was entrusted with the money, or that he stood in the position of a director, proprietor, partner, or active participant creating personal liability.

Conclusion: The decree against the petitioner could not be sustained and was set aside. The decision is in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere employee of a company is not personally liable in civil proceedings for the company's financial transactions merely because he signed a receipt on behalf of the company, unless there is material showing personal receipt, entrustment, or equivalent legal responsibility.

---