Madras High Court Upholds Appointment of District Judges as Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Secretary  ||  Allahabad High Court: IO’s Mere Apprehension Cannot Justify Withholding Seized Items  ||  Patna High Court: Mere Sight of Spouse in Compromising Position doesn't Prove Adultery  ||  Sikkim High Court: POCSO Case not Quashed on Settlement after Survivor Turns Major  ||  Chhattisgarh High Court: Backward Classes Commission Cannot Decide Private Commercial Disputes  ||  SC: Futures & Options Investors Cannot Recover Trading Losses From Professional Clearing Members  ||  Supreme Court: NCTE Executive Committee Can Seek Annual Reports From Teacher Education Institutes  ||  SC: S.362 CrPC Cannot Limit HC’s Inherent Power to Recall Judgment Causing Miscarriage of Justice  ||  Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Power to Supersede Multi-State Co-op Bank Boards Beyond Six Months  ||  Supreme Court: Retaining Victim in a Specific Role Cannot Reduce Functional Disability    

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