https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468276 Payment to an employee who had previously been authorised to collect money discharged the payer's liability where no notice or other circumstance showed revocation of that authority. On those facts, the payer was entitled to treat the employee as the defendant firm's agent for receipt of the amount. The principal remained liable for the employee's fraud committed in the course of the agency, even though the fraudulent act was for the employee's own benefit and was neither authorised nor approved by the principal. The payment was therefore valid against the defendant, and the loss fell on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. en-us Sat, 08 Dec 1923 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Apr 2026 10:55:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468276 Payment to an employee who had previously been authorised to collect money discharged the payer's liability where no notice or other circumstance showed revocation of that authority. On those facts, the payer was entitled to treat the employee as the defendant firm's agent for receipt of the amount. The principal remained liable for the employee's fraud committed in the course of the agency, even though the fraudulent act was for the employee's own benefit and was neither authorised nor approved by the principal. The payment was therefore valid against the defendant, and the loss fell on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 08 Dec 1923 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468276