SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

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