( 1 ) I have heard the Petitioners learned Advocate. The point urged by him is that arrest and detention in prison is a coercive step which the law contemplates only in those of the cases where a party who possesses requiste resources to discharge the debt is avoiding to do so and the law contemplates a level of permissible pressure and threat of inprisonment to be used in order to ensure the recovery of the dues. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 470 (Jolly George Varghese and Another vs. The Bank of Cochin) where in the Court had gone into the deeper aspect of whether, in the case of inability to discharge a debt a party can be imprisoned and the Supreme Court held that such imprisonment is unconstitutional. Mr. Natraj submits that the bank has not been able to show that the petitioner who is working as a coolie has the resources and the means to discharge the banks debt. His submission is that the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the bank stating that the petitioner is doing textile business and earning Rs. 5000/- per month is absolutely false and that the respondent bank has admitted that they have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document