#misappropriation

Bombay High Court rules that even temporary misappropriation by a bank employee irreparably damages trust, warranting dismissal under service law. The judgment reinforces that disciplinary proceedings for financial misconduct need not prove permanent loss but only breach of fiduciary duty, impacting employment termination policies in banking and cooperative sectors.

Delhi High Court upholds termination of a workman for misappropriating ₹40,403 despite 18 years of service, ruling that financial dishonesty irreparably breaches employer trust. The judgment reinforces that loss of confidence is a standalone ground for dismissal under service law, irrespective of subsequent restitution or tenure.

Madras High Court rules that funds misappropriated by a related party (husband of a partner) cannot be deducted as business expenditure under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment underscores that such claims require strict documentary evidence and cannot be justified merely by internal allegations of misappropriation, reinforcing tax compliance rigor for related-party transactions.

Bombay High Court upholds dismissal of an employee for misappropriating company funds by advancing loans at 48% interest and depositing Rs. 43,837 in personal accounts, far exceeding his salary. The court rules that such gross misconduct bars reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act, mandating only monetary compensation where superannuation applies.

Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench rules that a partner’s unauthorized disposal of partnership property for personal use constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, even if the assets are jointly owned. The judgment clarifies that partnership agreements do not shield dishonest misappropriation from criminal liability, impacting co-venturers and investors in joint enterprises.

Kerala High Court holds that mere bank passbook entries are insufficient to prove misappropriation of marital funds; documentary proof essential for monetary claims in divorce proceedings.

Bombay High Court holds that Section 420 IPC requires proof of dishonest intent at the time of deception, not subsequent misappropriation. Key precedent on cheating vs criminal breach of trust.