व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

212 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ B. V 4 7 3 / M. p. 110 L 24 p. 111 L8
This is the rule concerning him who admits (his liability) but (a
debtor) denying (his liability) shall be made to pay on (the debt)
being proved in a (judicial) assembly by a writing or by means of
witnesses. (A debtor) claiming judicial investigation in a doubtful case
should never be put under confinement (by the creditor), but he who
puts under restraint one who should not be restrained becomes liable to
be fined according to law
Āsedhaḥ means restraint by the king's order The same author
(Bṛhaspati p 331 v 64) says
Where a debtor says what may be found to be justly due that I,
shall pay such a debtor is called kriyāvādī (one claiming judicial
proof)
*Kātyāyana says
A creditor who harasses a debtor claiming judicial investigation would
lose his money and becomes liable to a fine equal to the debt.
Bṛhaspati says
He who in a doubtful (or contested) case proceeds with force (to
recover his debt by dharma bala &c) without complaining to the king
should be punished by the king and that money (the debt) he cannot
recover¹
Yama says
That debtor who though well off, does not return (a loan) on account
of his wicked nature should be made by the king to pay (the debt to the
creditor) after recovering (as a fine) from him (debtor) double (the
amount of the debt)
Yājñavalkya (II 42) says
The debtor should be made by the king to pay (to the king) ten
per cent of the claim established and the creditor should be made to pay
five per cent when he succeeded in his claim²
Daś'akam means with ten in addition i e. the tenth and
twentieth share (respectively) The sense is that these shares belonged
to the king and the remaining belonged to the creditor The levy of a tenth
share (for the king as his fee) refers to a poor (debtor) But Nārada
(p. 74 v 132) states a special rule about a rich (debtor)

1. Prasahya may also be connected with vinayaḥ and then the meaning would
   be he should be punished severely Br p. 331 v 65 says that when there is a difference
   of opinion between the two parties regarding the nature of the loan, about the number (i. e
   about the sum advanced) or about the rate of interest stipulated, or whether the amount
   claimed be due or not that is termed a doubtful case.
2. Ten per cent and five per cent recovered from the debtor and creditor respectively
   were in modern language the court fee but it was, it appears charged after the case was
   decided and not at the very institution of the suit, as now These recoveries were
   made only when there was no dispute as to the debt but where the debt itself was repu
   diated Yāj II. 42 applied.
   P 132 (text)