The reason why Paucity of Funds is not a valid defence is not a valid defence against attachment of property in India is that apart from being simply impractical, the power granted to the Consumer Forum under Section 25 of the new Consumer Protection Act 2019 empowers it to attach properties if its orders are not complied with.
Even prior to the new Act, its very well established by the Hobble Supreme Court of India that
In Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 425 - the Hon' SC Held that Lack of funds cannot be a valid defence against non compliance of order.
Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors., (2015) SCC OnLine SC 1454 - Held that merely financial constraints is not a valid defence against attachment of property.
Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, (1992) 1 SCC 7 - held that an order for attachment and sale of property can be passed against a judgment debtor who does not comply with the order of the Consumer Forum.
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622 - Held that the judgment debtor cannot avoid attachment and sale of the property on the ground that he has no other property except the one sought to be attached.
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330 - In this case, the Supreme Court held that a plea of financial difficulty cannot be considered as a valid defense against attachment of property.
Under Section 27 of the Old Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the decrees passed by Consumer Forum would be executed in the same manner as if it had been passed by a Civil Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment