Supreme Court: Second Bail Order Must Record Changed Circumstances or Fresh Grounds  ||  SC: Severity of Injury Alone Cannot Prove Attempt to Murder Without Intent to Cause Death  ||  SC: Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Used to Claim Unintended Benefits, Lays Down Principles  ||  Kerala High Court: No Unrestricted RTI; DPDP Act Strengthens Privacy Framework  ||  Allahabad High Court: Juvenile Offence Case Does Not Bar Govt Job In Adulthood  ||  Gauhati HC: Burden Of Proving Citizenship Stays With Proceedee and Does Not Shift At Any Stage  ||  Delhi HC: Property Disputes Between In-Laws and Daughter-In-Law are Not Exclusively For Family Court  ||  Delhi High Court: After Probate is Granted, A Will Does Not Require Fresh Proof under Section 68  ||  Ker HC: Periodic Replacement and Maintenance of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Included in Compensation  ||  Madras High Court: DNA Test Not Required For Mother to Donate Kidney to Her Son    

Mr. Tharmapitchai and Anr.v. A.C.A. Funds - (High Court of Madras) (25 Jan 1995)

Not requiring wilful defaulters to snitch on themselves

MANU/TN/0595/1995

Civil

Wilful default - alleging the debtor to have failed paying his or her debts despite the presence of funds - a last resort it may be for the lender, requires proving adequate means of payment of the debtor to the court. Madras High Court, hearing the same, opined ‘onus is undoubtedly upon the decree-holder [lender] to prove that the judgment-debtor had enough means’, failure to prove which would mean arrest of the debtor could not be ordered by the court. Moreover, burden of proof for proving adequacy of the means of the debtor to pay the debt would rest with the lender, not with the debtor. As such, the court held unsustainable a previous decision in the matter in which the debtors had been ordered to prove their means position.

Tags : WILLFUL DEFAULT   BURDEN OF PROOF   MEANS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved