https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300257 Vicarious liability under the Essential Commodities Act was discussed in terms of pleading sufficiency against partners of a firm. The majority view was that a complaint need not reproduce the exact words "in charge of and responsible to" the firm if it contains factual averments showing control, supervision, and responsibility over the business; those matters are for proof at trial. It was also held that Section 10(2) does not require express pleading of consent, connivance, or neglect at the threshold, because those are evidentiary matters. A dissenting view found the factual particulars insufficient and would have quashed the proceedings. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:21:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300257 Vicarious liability under the Essential Commodities Act was discussed in terms of pleading sufficiency against partners of a firm. The majority view was that a complaint need not reproduce the exact words "in charge of and responsible to" the firm if it contains factual averments showing control, supervision, and responsibility over the business; those matters are for proof at trial. It was also held that Section 10(2) does not require express pleading of consent, connivance, or neglect at the threshold, because those are evidentiary matters. A dissenting view found the factual particulars insufficient and would have quashed the proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300257