https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199776 In winding-up proceedings, an alleged prior adjustment of fixed deposits against an overdraft was not proved: the deposit receipts showed no discharge, the overdraft pass-book was not produced, and no authority or court sanction was established for a post-petition adjustment. That alleged adjustment was therefore not valid or binding on the liquidator. However, reciprocal and ascertained cross-demands between the company and the creditor could be set off despite the deposits not having matured when the winding-up application was filed. The creditor was entitled to set-off the fixed deposit amounts against the overdraft liability, and the overdraft decree was to be recalculated after giving that adjustment effect. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:12:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199776 In winding-up proceedings, an alleged prior adjustment of fixed deposits against an overdraft was not proved: the deposit receipts showed no discharge, the overdraft pass-book was not produced, and no authority or court sanction was established for a post-petition adjustment. That alleged adjustment was therefore not valid or binding on the liquidator. However, reciprocal and ascertained cross-demands between the company and the creditor could be set off despite the deposits not having matured when the winding-up application was filed. The creditor was entitled to set-off the fixed deposit amounts against the overdraft liability, and the overdraft decree was to be recalculated after giving that adjustment effect. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199776