1923 (12) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....For the Respondents : Mr. S.B. Gokhale, Pleader. JUDGMENT W.T.W. Baker, Esg. I.C.S. Officiating Judicial Commissioner Central Provinces 1. The facts of this case are simple. The Plaintiff and Defendant are firms. There were dealings between them. In the course of these dealings the Plaintiff paid Rs. 3,000/- to one Kesheolal, an employee of the Defendant's firm. Kesheolal ran away wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase it is admicted that Kesheolal was sent along with one Bharmal, a boy who was a relation of the manager of the Defendant's firm, to take money from the Plaintiff, and a letter was also sent with them. The money was not then paid and the letter was taken back. If this tatter had been produced, it would have been shown whether the money was paid to be paid to Kesheolal or to Bharmal. Kesheola....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the servant's own private benefit. Although this case has not been expressly overruled, there is a later case of the same High Court Shorjan Khan v. Alimuddin 43 Cal. 511 in which it is held that the principal is liable to third persons in a civil suit for the frauds and other malfeasances of his agent in the course of his employment although the principal did not authorise or justify or part....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efit." This case is based on the decision of the House of Lords in Lloyd v. Grass 1912 A. C. 716, which lays down that the principal is liable for the fraud of his agent acting within the scope of his authority, whether fraud is committed for the benefit of the principal or for the benefit of the agent. 6. The only question therefore is whether Kesheolal was acting as the agent of the Defendant....