Earmarked deposit as trust prevents inclusion in divisible assets and secures application to contractual liabilities; balance repayable after deduction.

A deposit paid to a company and earmarked for a specified contractual purpose is held in the nature of a trust for the depositor and the company and is excluded from the company's divisible assets to the extent required for that purpose; on accounting the company may deduct sums found due under the agreement and the depositor may claim any remaining balance. The agreement does not create an agency or fiduciary relationship between the parties; its terms establish a bilateral commercial contract and a contractual obligation to hold the deposit as security rather than an agency-imposed trust.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deposit of Rs. 3,01,397-4-3 paid to the company under the agreement is held by the company in trust or in a fiduciary capacity and therefore entitled to priority over unsecured creditors; (ii) Whether the agreement dated 4-6-1951 creates a relationship of agency or fiduciary obligation between the parties.

Issue (i): Whether the deposit is trust property or forms part of the divisible assets of the company.

Analysis: The Court examined whether the deposit had become the beneficial property of the company or was impressed with a character preventing it from becoming company property by reason of being held for a specific purpose. The Court reviewed principles distinguishing loans from trust funds, noting that a stipulation for repayment with interest does not necessarily negative a trust where the corpus is handed over for a specified purpose and the terms show the money was to be held as security for particular liabilities under the agreement. The agreement's clauses (earmarking as security, adjustment of prices, and refund on termination) were analysed to determine whether the deposit could be applied to outstanding dues and whether any balance would belong to the depositor.

Conclusion: The deposit is held by the company for a specific purpose in the nature of a trust for the benefit of the depositor and the company; the depositor is entitled to repayment only of the balance remaining after deduction of any sums found due to the company on account of transactions under the agreement.

Issue (ii): Whether the agreement creates an agency or fiduciary relationship making the deposit a trust by reason of agency.

Analysis: The Court analysed the terms (treatment of goods, execution of orders, commission provisions) and applied the definition of agent under Section 182, Contract Act. Clauses treating the purchaser as buyer and providing that orders be executed on behalf of the purchaser were held inconsistent with representation of the company. The commission provisions were considered and held not to convert a buyer-seller relationship into an agency. The contract was therefore characterised as bilateral commercial contract between principals rather than an agency imposing fiduciary obligations.

Conclusion: The agreement does not create an agency or fiduciary relationship; it creates a contractual obligation to hold the deposit as security for specific purposes rather than a trust properly so-called arising from agency.

Final Conclusion: The Court modified the lower court's unqualified declaration of trust and held that the deposit is a fund held for a specific purpose in the nature of a trust for both the depositor and the company; on accounting, sums found due to the company may be deducted and distributed rateably among creditors, and the depositor may claim repayment of the balance.

Ratio Decidendi: A sum paid to a company and ear-marked for a specific purpose is excluded from the company's divisible assets to the extent it remains required for that purpose; such a fund is held in the nature of a trust for both the depositor and the company, and only the balance after application to the designated purpose ranks as the depositor's proprietary interest.

---