<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1972 (9) TMI 157 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195191</link>
    <description>Money advanced for a definite and exclusive purpose, and not available for the recipient&#039;s own use, is impressed with a trust and is excluded from the insolvent estate. Applying the Companies Act, 1956 liquidation principles on trust and fiduciary property, the court noted that the funds were paid only to be passed on towards a specified deposit, were not to be diverted, and were returnable if the agency arrangement failed. The recipient therefore had no beneficial dominion over the money; when the underlying purpose failed, the amount retained its trust character and was payable in priority to the person who advanced it, rather than to general unsecured creditors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:00:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (9) TMI 157 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195191</link>
      <description>Money advanced for a definite and exclusive purpose, and not available for the recipient&#039;s own use, is impressed with a trust and is excluded from the insolvent estate. Applying the Companies Act, 1956 liquidation principles on trust and fiduciary property, the court noted that the funds were paid only to be passed on towards a specified deposit, were not to be diverted, and were returnable if the agency arrangement failed. The recipient therefore had no beneficial dominion over the money; when the underlying purpose failed, the amount retained its trust character and was payable in priority to the person who advanced it, rather than to general unsecured creditors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>