https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98378 A security deposit paid by a sole selling agent was held not to be impressed with a trust, because the agreement did not require segregation, permitted the money to be used as the recipient's own, and provided for interest on the deposit. Clause 9 also treated the security deposit and unpaid commission on the same footing, and the commission claim was itself only a debt. On a true construction of the agreement and surrounding facts, the relationship was debtor and creditor, not fiduciary. Priority in liquidation was therefore unavailable, and the claimant ranked only as an ordinary creditor. en-us Thu, 19 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98378 A security deposit paid by a sole selling agent was held not to be impressed with a trust, because the agreement did not require segregation, permitted the money to be used as the recipient's own, and provided for interest on the deposit. Clause 9 also treated the security deposit and unpaid commission on the same footing, and the commission claim was itself only a debt. On a true construction of the agreement and surrounding facts, the relationship was debtor and creditor, not fiduciary. Priority in liquidation was therefore unavailable, and the claimant ranked only as an ordinary creditor. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 19 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98378