https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279754 Money paid for a specific purpose before the contemplated agreement was executed was treated as held in a fiduciary capacity, so on insolvency the claimant's remedy was to trace the trust money and assert a charge on the estate rather than claim ordinary repayment. Because the funds were not kept separate and had been mixed with the firm's own money, the equitable remedy had to be preserved to be effective. After the claimant sued and obtained a personal decree without reserving that trust-based claim, Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code barred reliance on the alternative remedy against the estate. The Official Assignee therefore could not be compelled to repay the amount in specie. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Apr 2019 10:03:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279754 Money paid for a specific purpose before the contemplated agreement was executed was treated as held in a fiduciary capacity, so on insolvency the claimant's remedy was to trace the trust money and assert a charge on the estate rather than claim ordinary repayment. Because the funds were not kept separate and had been mixed with the firm's own money, the equitable remedy had to be preserved to be effective. After the claimant sued and obtained a personal decree without reserving that trust-based claim, Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code barred reliance on the alternative remedy against the estate. The Official Assignee therefore could not be compelled to repay the amount in specie. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279754