Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Abolish Hanging, Says Centre Can Explore Alternative Methods  ||  Supreme Court: Sentences With Life Imprisonment Must Run Concurrently, Not Consecutively  ||  SC: Insurer Not Liable Beyond Sum Assured Without Advance Premium Payment  ||  Supreme Court: Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Regularised Due to Long Service  ||  SC: Courts Should Not Interfere Late in Tender Processes; Challenges Must Be Prompt  ||  Delhi HC: UAPA Default Bail Triggered after 180 Days, Not 90 under BNSS  ||  Madras HC: No Place for Caste Discrimination in Temples, God Treats All Equally  ||  Bombay HC: Public Authorities Need Not Obtain Third-Party Information for RTI Applicants  ||  Delhi HC Levies Rs.5 Lakh Costs on Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited over Sham Plea  ||  Delhi HC: False Marriage Promise Invalidates Consent Only if it Taints Consent    

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