https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305644 A principal is vicariously liable for negligence committed by its agent in the course of employment, and the State was therefore responsible for the State Bank of India's failure to communicate the loan application and deposit within the prescribed time and manner. The Court held that the bank's lapse caused the plaintiff's loss and that the State could not avoid liability because the omission was not expressly authorised. It further held that the bank itself remained negligent and could be fastened with joint and several liability under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC, even though the plaintiff had filed no cross-appeal or cross-objection, where complete justice required such relief. en-us Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2022 12:37:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305644 A principal is vicariously liable for negligence committed by its agent in the course of employment, and the State was therefore responsible for the State Bank of India's failure to communicate the loan application and deposit within the prescribed time and manner. The Court held that the bank's lapse caused the plaintiff's loss and that the State could not avoid liability because the omission was not expressly authorised. It further held that the bank itself remained negligent and could be fastened with joint and several liability under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC, even though the plaintiff had filed no cross-appeal or cross-objection, where complete justice required such relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305644