Madras High Court Sentences Advocate To 4 Months Imprisonment For Disobeying Judicial Orders | Lawyer Breached Undertaking By Refusing To Vacate Rented Office | Court Orders Disciplinary Action Saying Bar Member’s Defiance Erodes Public Faith
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Single Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has sentenced a practicing advocate to four months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 for committing civil contempt by deliberately breaching an undertaking given before the court. The court held that the contemnor had wilfully failed to vacate a tenanted property despite clear orders from the High Court and the Supreme Court and despite submitting an affidavit of undertaking to comply. In addition to the sentence, the court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary action against the contemnor for professional misconduct. The court further instructed the civil court to strike off a related suit filed by the contemnor as re-litigation and abuse of process. All articles removed from the premises were ordered to be preserved, with directions to dispose of them lawfully if not collected. The contemnor was directed to be detained immediately.
The contempt petitions originated from the deliberate violation of a court order by a practicing advocate who had been occupying premises at No.19-A, Thiruvenkatapuram, Choolaimedu, Chennai, also identified as Door No.13/2, Khan Street, Chennai. The landlord had initiated eviction proceedings under R.C.O.P. Nos.1317 and 1318 of 2015 before the XIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The advocate, who was the tenant in respect of the Ground Floor, First Floor, and Second Floor, admitted tenancy but continuously delayed the proceedings by filing numerous applications and litigations.
The Court recorded in earlier proceedings that the contemnor was protracting rent control proceedings to the maximum extent, avoiding cross-examination and failing to appear despite multiple opportunities. The judicial records noted that the contemnor filed multiple review petitions and transfer applications to delay proceedings. In C.R.P. (PD) Nos.716 and 717 of 2021, the court had previously observed: "It is very unfortunate that by taking advantage of his position as an advocate, the petitioner appears to be bullying both the Courts below."
In a transfer application in Tr.O.P. No.25 of 2021, the Court noted that the contemnor had initiated over 24 proceedings, including Special Leave Petitions, many with the intent to delay eviction. The contemnor also allegedly lodged a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the landlord's counsel. Despite these actions, the eviction order was affirmed in C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1773 and 1775 of 2024. On 08.11.2024, the High Court exercised its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, ordering the contemnor to vacate within two months.
The Court stated: "In India, in our experience, the real litigation starts only when the execution petition is filed... there is every likelihood that the revision petitioner will resort all sort of proceedings to thwart delivery of possession." Consequently, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, was directed to execute the eviction order.
The contemnor filed Special Leave Petitions in S.L.P. (C) Nos.31055 and 31056 of 2024 before the Supreme Court. By order dated 06.01.2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions but granted time to vacate till 31.05.2025, conditional on filing an undertaking before the trial court within two weeks. The contemnor failed to file the undertaking within the stipulated period. However, during contempt proceedings initiated by the landlord, the contemnor submitted an affidavit of undertaking before the High Court on 09.04.2025.
Despite the affidavit, the contemnor did not vacate the premises. On 04.06.2025, the High Court recorded: "He has not handed over the entire premises as directed by this court. The demeanour of the contemnor itself proves his attitude that he being a lawyer will not heed to the orders of the court."
On 05.06.2025, when the Court was about to pass a detailed order, the contemnor submitted he would not enter the premises further and handed over the keys across the bar to the petitioner’s counsel. An inventory process was ordered to be undertaken by the Head Bailiff, Madras High Court, on 06.06.2025. Police protection was also directed.
Despite his assurance, the contemnor was present during the inventory process and obstructed proceedings. It was later found that he had filed O.S. No.2898 of 2025 before the XXI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking injunction against the landlords. The Court termed this a deliberate act of re-litigation.
In the explanation affidavit dated 30.06.2025, the contemnor admitted withholding access to 100 sq. ft. in the Ground Floor and 700 sq. ft. in the Second Floor. He also lodged a complaint against the Head Bailiff. The court noted that the explanation lacked remorse and was filled with renewed claims over the property.
The contemnor had also filed Letters Patent Appeals against the High Court’s contempt orders dated 16.06.2025 in L.P.A. Nos.25 and 26 of 2025. These appeals were dismissed on 26.06.2025.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed: "The conduct of the contemnor has never shown any remorse or repentance for his continuous disobedience of the orders of this Court."
The Court recorded: "Once again, he has started laying claim over the premises in which he was originally inducted as a tenant." Referring to the explanation affidavit, the Court stated: "The very nature of the explanation filed by the contemnor... is nothing but a deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court, with a mala fide intention."
The Court cited various precedents to support its conclusions. Referring to Peter Ramesh Kumar v. Suo Motu, the Court quoted: "An apology is not a weapon of defense to purge the guilty of their offence... it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness."
Quoting the Supreme Court in Suman Chadha v. Central Bank of India: "It is true that this Court has held in a series of decisions that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court amounts to contempt of Court..."
In Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, the Supreme Court held: "The fact that the petitioner can execute the decree can have no bearing on the contempt committed by the respondents."
The Court also referred to Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain, quoting: "Disregarding a Court's order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold."
Justice Sathish Kumar stated the higher responsibility of legal professionals, stating: "The position of lawyers in the Society is so high... When such is the pride position given to a lawyer under the Constitution, the conduct... is expected to be in the interest of the Institution."
He continued: "The contemnor, being a member of lawyer's community, is expected to show utmost good conduct not only in the Court but also in the Society."
Addressing the contemnor’s defiance, the Court observed: "All these factors clearly show that the contemnor, with his position as a lawyer and membership in the Bar as a shield, is stubborn enough to disobey and disrespect the orders of the Courts."
Justice Sathish Kumar concluded: "Such a serious misconduct and contempt, if not dealt with by this Court with a firm hand, will amount to giving licence to such unscrupulous lawyers to take law in their own hands."
The Court concluded: "The contemnor is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of four months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). Registry is directed to issue necessary warrant forthwith and the contemnor is directed to be detained in civil prison."
The Court declined to suspend the sentence: "As the contemnor purposefully avoided not to appear before this Court on the last date of hearing and also today, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence."
Further, the Court directed: "The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action as against the contemnor for his misconduct as against the Bar Council Rules."
With regard to the articles removed: "If the contemnor is not willing to take back his articles within a period of one month, the Registry shall proceed to dispose the same as per law and any proceeds from such disposal shall be deposited in any of the Accounts of this Court."
Regarding judicial records: "The reports of the Head Bailiff along with lists of inventory, photographs, and a pendrive containing footage of the entire process of inventory, shall form part of case records."
Additionally, the Court directed: "Registry is directed to hand over the key, which was submitted by the contemnor before this Court, to the petitioner/landlord, if not already handed over."
The court also ordered: "The XXI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is directed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.2898 of 2025 immediately as re-litigation and abuse of process of Court."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr.Kushal Kumar Sancheti
For the Respondent : Mr.G.S.Mani
Case Title: P.Vikash Kumar v. A.Mohandass
Case Number: Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
Bench: Justice N. Sathish Kumar
