Far too late

An officer of the Indian Revenue Service applied for voluntary retirement on 10.5.2005. By a letter dated 25.8.2005, sent to his residential address instead of where he was posted, he was asked to pay certain dues. On 9.9.2005, he received a suspension order for failing to pay them. The officer said that since he had not received any intimation to the contrary within three months of putting in his application for voluntary retirement, he had assumed that his plea for retirement had been accepted. And so the suspen-sion, which came even later, was invalid. The Supreme Court held that a suspension order, sent to the officer’s residential address, when it was known that he had still not left the place of his last posting, was ineffective. (Union of India vs S.P. Singh)

Company at fault

The proprietor of a dealership firm filed a complaint before the chief judicial magistrate, accusing the managing director of Britannia Industries Ltd of criminal breach of trust. The complaint said that the company neither sent the goods it had agreed to, nor did it refund the money it had been paid. The Supreme Court said that no person could be held vicariously liable for an offence under the Indian Penal Code. It added that a company was considered to be a ‘person’ by law and individuals employed by it could be vicariously liable for offences. But when a dealership agreement was signed and demand drafts were drawn in the name of a company, the managing director could not be held vicariously liable for the company’s offence. (S.L. Alagh vs State of U.P.)

Wrong papers

The owner of a property mortgaged it on condition that it would revert to the mortgager after seven years. But the mortgager died during this period and his relatives filed a suit for the redemption of the mortgage. Citing an unregistered agreement, the mortgagee contended that the mortgage was converted into a lease and he had become a tenant. The Supreme Court held that the terms of a registered mortgage deed could only be altered by a registered document. It also added that the status of a mortgagee could not be changed to that of a tenant with the help of such a document. (Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohiti)