https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104495 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. en-us Mon, 07 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:55:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104495 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 07 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104495