As per case facts, R.Kalaivani, a dormant partner, was accused of benami transactions due to unexplained cash deposits in the firm's account post-demonetisation. Her discharge petition was dismissed, leading to ... an appeal in the High Court. The question arose whether R.Kalaivani could be held vicariously liable under the PBPT Act without specific averments in the complaint establishing her direct involvement or responsibility in the firm's business. Finally, the High Court allowed her appeal, discharging her. It ruled that without specific complaint averments proving her active role or responsibility, vicarious liability could not be inferred, emphasizing that such liability must be pleaded and proven.