JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J. - This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, 24-Parganas directing the amount deposited by the Defendant in Court as security to be remitted to the Official Assignee. High Court, Calcutta. Chitrabani, Ltd., the Petitioner before us are a firm of producers of cinema films. Keshav Achan, Opposite Party No. 1, was a distributor of cinema films and the Plaintiff Petitioner had appointed the latter their distributor of the film "Ratri" under certain conditions. The Plaintiff had brought T.S.No. 175 of 1947 in the Alipore Court for the cancellation of the contract and also for rendition of accounts by the Defendants. Shortly after the suit had been instituted, on an application by the Plaintiff for the appointment of a receiver for the exhibition of the film, Raj Kumar Samarendra Narayan Sing Deo of Dhenkanal, who was the Plaintiff's financier, was appointed as Receiver. An appeal was taken to this Court by the Defendant Keshav Achan and pending disposal of the appeal (F.M.A. 137 of 1947) Harries, C.J. and Clough, J., passed an interim order on October 10, 1947, staying delivery of possession to the Receiver Rajkumar and pending the disposal of the appeal the Defendant Keshav Achan was appointed receiver to take charge of the positive copy of the film "Ratri" subject to his furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 6,000. The Defendant Keshav Achan furnished the required security of Rs. 6,000 in cash and deposited the amount in the lower Court. The writ was accordingly issued on 20th October, 1947. Certain accounts were filed by the Receiver in November 15, 1947. It appears that the Misc. Appeal which was pending in the High Court was dismissed for non-prosecution on December 16, 1947 with the result that the original order passed by the Subordinate Judge appointing Rajkumar of Dhenkanal as Receiver was revived. Immediately after the Defendant Keshav Achan had been appointed as Receiver by the High Court, petitions and counter-petitions were filed by the parties in the Alipore Court regarding the amount which had come into the hands of the Defendant as Receiver and about the depositing the same in Court. Immediately after the Defendant Keshav Achan had been appointed as Receiver by the High Court, petitions and counter-petitions were filed by the parties in the Alipore Court regarding the amount which had come into the hands of the Defendant as Receiver and about the depositing the same in Court. On December 22, 1947, after the appeal in the High Court had been dismissed, a petition was filed by the Defendant Achan admitting his liability for account which might be settled after inspection of the accounts and in the meantime agreeing that the amount of Rs. 6,000 which was already in deposit in Court, might be taken by the Plaintiff pending settlement of accounts. 2. It appears that the Raj Kumar of Dhenkanal had also started proceedings in the Original Side of this Court (Suit No. 2922 of 1947) but the date when this suit was filed can not be ascertained from the records in this Rule. On January 5, 1948, this Court appointed the said Kumar of Dhenkanal as Receiver in respect of the film "Ratri" and its proceeds thereof. The latter accordingly applied to the Alipore Court for the issue of the writ and for a direction to hand over the proceeds to the Receiver. 3. The Official Assignee of Calcutta wrote to the Subordinate Judge that Keshab Achan had, by an order by the High Court made on January 5, 1948, been adjudicated insolvent and all his estate and effects had been vested in the Official Assignee. He further requested the Court not to permit the insolvent or any one else to withdraw the sum of Rs. 6,000 or any money still lying in deposit as such security until further communication from him to Court. The adjudication of Keshav Achan has been made on his own petition and on January 8, 1948, the Official Assignee wrote to the Subordinate Judge in the following terms:-- I have referred you to secs. 17 and 46 (8) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909) and request you to be so good as to direct all further proceedings in the suit pending before the Court of the Subordinate Judge be stayed and attachment order, if any, passed by your Court be removed and the goods so attached be made over to this office. The creditors may be directed to prove their claim in insolvency. 4. The creditors may be directed to prove their claim in insolvency. 4. Before the receipt of the letter dated 8th January, 1948, from the Official Assignee referred to above, the learned Subordinate Judge had directed on January, 7, that the payment of Rs. 6,000 in deposit as security be withheld pending further intimation from the Official Assignee but on receipt of the subsequent letter a further Order was passed on February 5, directing the Nazir to withdraw the amount and remit the same to the Official Assignee. On February 10, 1948 the Plaintiff company filed an application for vacating the order passed on February 5. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the amount in deposit was the money belonging to the insolvent. The amount having been deposited merely as security, the Plaintiff company has no special claim. He was further of opinion that unless the Plaintiff company could show that it was a secured creditor, it was not entitled to any order in its favour. The Plaintiff Company, on showing that it was one of the creditors of the insolvent, will get a share when the same is distributed to the creditors. Against these two last orders passed by the Subordinate Judge this Court has been moved. 5. It is to be noticed at the outset that the orders which had been passed by the Court is not one for attachment of the money in deposit in Court but a direction to pay the entire deposit immediately to the Official Assignee. It is apparent that the money so deposited is not the property over which the insolvent has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit until it is ascertained whether the same or any portion thereof will be required to be paid out in fulfilment of the condition under which the deposit had been made. After a deposit is made by way of security for the due discharge of the office of a Receiver, two different contingencies may arise. It may be that the duties of the Receiver will be duly performed and the entire amount will be available for payment to the insolvent. On the happening of that contingency, the amount will be released and be at the disposal of the insolvent. It may be that the duties of the Receiver will be duly performed and the entire amount will be available for payment to the insolvent. On the happening of that contingency, the amount will be released and be at the disposal of the insolvent. On the other hand, if the Receiver makes himself liable to compensate for any loss or be otherwise liable to pay any amount due from him, the security lying in deposit in Court will be liable to be reduced to the extent of the liability found against the insolvent. On the happening of this second contingency either the whole or a part of the security, which is liable to be paid for the due discharge of responsibilities as a Receiver, will cease to be available to the insolvent. In the particular case now before us, the then Receiver Achan had admitted his liability to pay at least Rs. 6,000 pending the examination of the accounts and on his so agreeing to the payment of the said amount of Rs. 6,000 out of the security deposit, the insolvent had on the relevant date no control or disposing power over the entire amount. 6. Sec. 52 of the Presidency Town Insolvency Act makes only the property of the insolvent vest in the Official Assignee. Under cl. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 52, only if the goods be either in the possession or the order or disposal of the insolvent such property shall be the property of the insolvent. As indicated above the amount of the security already in deposit in Court was not a property which is either in the possession, order or disposal of the insolvent. In this view, the Insolvency Court had no jurisdiction to direct payment of the amount to the Official Assignee for distribution amongst the creditors of the insolvent [Jag dish Narain Singh v. Mst. Ram Sukul Kuer ILR 8 Pat. 478 (1929)]. From another point of view it may be taken that the amount which is deposited in Court by way of security is in the nature of a trust in favour of a particular creditor as the debtor had no control over the money and the Court is bound to apply it only for the purpose specified. [Isha Prakash Ganguly v. A.K. Basu 47 C.W.N. 480 (1942)]. See also Ramiah Aiyer ILR 41 Mad. 1058 (1918). 7. [Isha Prakash Ganguly v. A.K. Basu 47 C.W.N. 480 (1942)]. See also Ramiah Aiyer ILR 41 Mad. 1058 (1918). 7. The proper test in this case to apply is not whether the Defendant is a secured creditor or not. The only point for enquiry in this case should, in the special circumstances, be as to whether the debtor, on the date when the Official Assignee is writing to the Subordinate Judge, had full and complete power of disposal over the amount in deposit. The debtor had no disposing power and the Court had no authority to send the amount to the Official Assignee directing the Plaintiff to approach the Insolvency Court for proving his debt or be classed along with the other creditors to prove his debt. 8. This Rule is accordingly made absolute and the order directing Rs. 6,000 being the amount deposited as security to be paid to the Official Assignee vacated. The amount must continue to be available to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge for due discharge of the onerous responsibility as undertaken when the security was so deposited. 9. Costs of this hearing assessed at three gold mohurs. Let the records be sent down as early as possible. Chunder, J. I agree.