https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279754 The respondent sought to recover a deposit of Rs. 1,000 from an insolvent firm, claiming it was held on trust. The Chief Justice and another Judge concluded that the deposit was indeed held in trust for the respondent, giving them a charge on the firm's assets. However, the respondent's failure to preserve their remedies led to the loss of their right to enforce the charge against the Official Assignee. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, denying the respondent's claim to enforce the charge due to procedural shortcomings. 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 The respondent sought to recover a deposit of Rs. 1,000 from an insolvent firm, claiming it was held on trust. The Chief Justice and another Judge concluded that the deposit was indeed held in trust for the respondent, giving them a charge on the firm's assets. However, the respondent's failure to preserve their remedies led to the loss of their right to enforce the charge against the Official Assignee. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, denying the respondent's claim to enforce the charge due to procedural shortcomings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279754