https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198096 Money deposited as security for due performance of a construction contract was treated as a contractual deposit held by the architect as stakeholder for both sides. On completion of the work, the sum became refundable, and both the owner and the architect were liable to return it; the owner could not deny liability after ratifying the deposit, and the architect could not apply the fund to his own claims. Limitation was governed by the specific deposit article, running from the date of deposit, and not by the general contract or demand-based provisions. The claim was therefore not time-barred, with the residuary limitation provision also supporting maintainability. en-us Tue, 31 May 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:49:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198096 Money deposited as security for due performance of a construction contract was treated as a contractual deposit held by the architect as stakeholder for both sides. On completion of the work, the sum became refundable, and both the owner and the architect were liable to return it; the owner could not deny liability after ratifying the deposit, and the architect could not apply the fund to his own claims. Limitation was governed by the specific deposit article, running from the date of deposit, and not by the general contract or demand-based provisions. The claim was therefore not time-barred, with the residuary limitation provision also supporting maintainability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 May 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198096