https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97323 Whether an earmarked deposit is trust property or company debt was examined; the court applied the distinction between monies held on trust and monies advanced as loans, considered whether interest stipends or agency/vendor labels negate trust, and evaluated the effect of earmarking and contractual appropriation. It held the agreement imposed a contractual obligation to hold the deposit for a combined purpose: security for outstanding dues and refund of any surplus on termination. Operatively, the portion of the deposit required to meet the company's dues is divisible among unsecured creditors, while the balance retains proprietary priority in favour of the depositor. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:50:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97323 Whether an earmarked deposit is trust property or company debt was examined; the court applied the distinction between monies held on trust and monies advanced as loans, considered whether interest stipends or agency/vendor labels negate trust, and evaluated the effect of earmarking and contractual appropriation. It held the agreement imposed a contractual obligation to hold the deposit for a combined purpose: security for outstanding dues and refund of any surplus on termination. Operatively, the portion of the deposit required to meet the company's dues is divisible among unsecured creditors, while the balance retains proprietary priority in favour of the depositor. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 27 Jan 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97323