https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96796 Preferential payment was confined to the amount traceable to the provident fund instalment, because the original deposit was made when the fund rules allowed deposit with the bank and did not create a breach of trust. Any possible breach arose only on renewal, and only for the annual instalment that had to be invested in authorised securities. The statutory investment duty therefore limited the extent of any tainted amount, and the whole deposit could not be treated as one mixed trust fund. The bank's alleged knowledge of later rule changes did not enlarge the preferential claim, so the balance ranked only as an ordinary creditor's claim. en-us Tue, 02 May 1939 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:05:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96796 Preferential payment was confined to the amount traceable to the provident fund instalment, because the original deposit was made when the fund rules allowed deposit with the bank and did not create a breach of trust. Any possible breach arose only on renewal, and only for the annual instalment that had to be invested in authorised securities. The statutory investment duty therefore limited the extent of any tainted amount, and the whole deposit could not be treated as one mixed trust fund. The bank's alleged knowledge of later rule changes did not enlarge the preferential claim, so the balance ranked only as an ordinary creditor's claim. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 02 May 1939 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96796