In the course of employment, when the master assigns specific tasks to

the servant and the servant completes them, it is said to be in the course
of employment. In the case that a servant's act within the course of
employment produces legal harm to another, the master is accountable
for the act.

ANALYSIS:

From the perspective of vikas bank, the counsel is defending the case.
The bank is not liable for any losses caused by money misappropriation.
The ability to choose the servant/employee, the right to decide on
remuneration, control over how the duty is done, and the authority to
suspend services are all clear indications that Romeo is the servant of
vikas bank.

As we can see, one of the most important facts about him is that he was
a bank servant. He was meticulous and sincere in his actions in this
matter, according to the evidence. Juliet made a mistake in this situation.
It had nothing to do with my line of work at all. Furthermore, the bank
was exempt from any liability for Juliet's actions. Romeo was completely
unaware of the error. Even though the wrong was committed while on the
job, it was too far away to predict.

The court held in State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke,

1995, that the master is not liable if the servant's unauthorised and
wrongful act is not so closely related to the authorised act as to be a
mode of doing it, in this case Juliet was not at all under the employment
of the bank and closely connected but is an independent act; for the
servant is not acting in the course of the employment but has gone
outside of it.

In the case of Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt

(1966), the driver performed an act for which he was not hired and so
clearly behaved outside the limits of his work by renting the automobile to
the cleaner for the purpose of taking a driving test.

As a result, the owner was judged not to be responsible. As a result of

this precedent, we can conclude that the bank is not accountable for
Juliet's wrongdoing.

M/S Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. v. Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi Pvt.
Ltd. 1977, the Supreme Court declared that the owner is liable for the
driver's negligence not only when the driver is his servant acting in the
course of his employment, but also when the driver is driving his car for