https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194439 The High Court upheld the lower court's decision that the debts owed by the deceased husband were deposits, not loans, and therefore not barred by limitation. The court found evidence in account books and the respondent's testimony supporting the nature of the transactions. The distinction between loans and deposits was clarified, emphasizing the lack of immediate repayment obligation for deposits. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the appeal and ordering the defendants to bear the costs of the proceedings. en-us Thu, 03 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Sep 2017 17:48:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194439 The High Court upheld the lower court's decision that the debts owed by the deceased husband were deposits, not loans, and therefore not barred by limitation. The court found evidence in account books and the respondent's testimony supporting the nature of the transactions. The distinction between loans and deposits was clarified, emphasizing the lack of immediate repayment obligation for deposits. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the appeal and ordering the defendants to bear the costs of the proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194439