Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

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