While sending a very loud, strong and clear message to one and all that even advocates are not above the rule of law, the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled P Vikash Kumar vs A Mohandass in Cont.P.Nos. 985 & 986 of 2025 that was reserved on 02.07.2025 and then finally pronounced as recently as on 08.07.2025 has sentenced an advocate named A Mohandass to four months of imprisonment for contempt of court citing his persistent unjustified refusal to vacate a rented property despite eviction orders that had been issued by the Madras High Court and even the Supreme Court. It must be mentioned here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Sathish Kumar who authored this most commendable judgment in a stern rebuke and strict action minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the advocate did not show any genuine remorse or regret for his actions. As a consequence, we thus see that the Madras High Court thus deemed it fit to sentence him to four months of imprisonment and so also ordered him to pay a fine of Rs 2000. We also need to note that the Bench also directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for misconduct, underscoring that such actions undermine the sanctity of the judicial process which alone explains why punishment was inflicted on him. No denying or disputing!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Sathish Kumar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
These Contempt Petitions arise out of breach of undertaking given by the contemnor before this Court to vacate the subject premises on or before 31.05.2025 and also for disobeying the orders of this Court in C.R.P.Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024.
To put things in perspective and to put it briefly, the Bench envisages in para 2 holding that:
Before delving into these Contempt Petitions, the following facts are necessary for the disposal of these Contempt Petitions:
2.1.The contemnor is a practising Advocate of Madras High Court and other Courts. He is also said to have held many posts in the Bar Association. Rent control proceedings were initiated against him by the contempt petitioner, in R.C.O.P.Nos.1317 & 1318 of 2015 on the file of the XIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, for eviction. In the counter and additional counter filed by the contemnor in the rent control proceedings, his induction as a tenant to the premises, namely, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor, is not disputed by the contemnor. Be that as it may, the contemnor has not conducted the rent control proceedings and he tried to protract the proceedings to the maximum extent. He has filed several litigations and also applications, one after another, to protract the rent control proceedings filed by the petitioner. Factual aspects in this regard have been lucidly recorded by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024, by order dated 08.11.2024, and in fact, in Para No.19 of the said order, this Court has recorded the number of applications filed in the rent control proceedings by the contemnor to delay and protract the proceedings, apart from several litigations.
2.2.It is relevant to note that the conduct of the contemnor has been deprecated not once, but on various occasions by various learned Single Judges of this Court. Certain observations made by this Court in various proceedings against the conduct of the contemnor, are relevant to this contempt proceedings also. Therefore, this Court extracts the same as under:
2.2.1.In one of the proceedings initiated by the contemnor before the Division Bench of this Court in Rev.Appl.SR.Nos.67110, 67105 & 67143 of 2017, this Court, vide judgment dated 01.08.2018, recorded the following findings :
15.Therefore, this Court even otherwise does not see any merit in the grounds raised in the review petition as the order passed by the Division Bench is comprehensive and take care of the interest of the parties. In any event, in the guise of filing the review petition, the petitioner is only attempting to wriggle out the instructions presumsed to be given to his Advocate at the time when original side appeals were disposed of. Moreover the grounds as raised in the review petition do not satisfy the parameters laid down in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and also various rulings of the Court on the subject matter. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present review petition is nothing but, another attempt by the review petitioner from protracting the pending litigation to subserve his interest. (emphasis supplied)
2.2.2.In earlier Civil Revision Petitions filed by the contemnor, in C.R.P.(PD) Nos.716 & 717 of 2021, this Court, by common order dated 20.04.2021, has recorded as follows:
3.It is very unfortunate that by taking advantage of his position as an advocate, the petitioner appears to be bullying both the Courts below. Now, claiming himself as innocent and ignorant, he has again come before this Court seeking indulgence.
8.The Revision Petitioner is obviously squatting on the property without giving any respect to the very legal process, the sanctity of which, he had taken an oath to uphold at the time of his enrolment.
12.It is to be stated that P.W.1 was examined in chief on 14.11.2016 and from 28.11.2016 onwards till this date, the witness has not been cross examined.
14.I sincerely wish that both the Authorities before whom the petitions were filed and who rejected the case of the petitioner, seeking time for cross examination from the year 2016, had closed the matter years before, rather than permitting the petitioner to grow in confidence and over confidence that he can get any order which he seeks from the Courts of law. It must be kept in mind that he has no rights to dictate how the Court proceedings should be conducted. As an advocate, an additional duty is cast on the petitioner to be a responsible litigant and also be an example to other litigants. The attitude of the revision petitioner in bullying the Court proceedings would only lead other litigants to believe that by such bullying tactics, adjournments can be obtained. That was the conduct which the petitioner had been exhibiting for the past nearly 5 years from the date when cross examination was originally posted on 28.11.2016.
18.Once again, on 06.08.2018, the learned Rent Controller again granted opportunity to the present petitioner to lead the evidence. At that stage, the petitioner herein had filed MP.Nos.324 & 326 of 2018 to reopen the evidence and recall P.W.1. Both the applications were allowed on 27.08.2018 and the evidence was reopened for cross examination of P.W.1. As is the practice of the present revision petitioner, he again did not cross examine P.W.1. This Court is really ashamed of the conduct of the present revision petitioner who claims to be a honourable member of the Bar. As a matter of fact, this is an attitude for which the entire judiciary has to be ashamed of. He did not cross examine P.W.1. On 30.11.2018, he was again set exparte.
28.I fervently hope that Mr.B.K.Sreenivasan, learned counsel will advise the petitioner regarding his responsibility as a litigant and as an Advocate. I hope that sense and sensibility would prevail. (emphasis supplied)
The above findings clearly indicate that, even during pendency of the proceedings, the conduct of the contemnor is to, somehow or the other, protract the proceedings and he has shown scant respect to the Court proceedings. This Court has clearly recorded that he is squatting over the property without giving any respect to the very legal process, the sanctity of which, he had taken an oath to uphold at the time of his enrollment.
2.3.It is worthy to note that, besides burdening the landlord with avalanche of cases, the contemnor has not even spared the counsel who appeared for the landlord who was also indicted for a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2.5.By recording so, this Court directed the contemnor to vacate the premises within a period of two months and also directed the Commissioner of Police to execute the orders of this Court for eviction of the contemnor and hand over vacant possession to the landlords. 2.6.Challenging the above delivery order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024, Special Leave Petitions in S.L.P.(C) Nos.31055 & 31056 of 2024 were filed by the contemnor before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 06.01.2025. While dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the time to vacate the premises till 31st May, 2025, subject to the contemnor’s filing an usual undertaking in this regard before the trial Court within two weeks from the date of the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also directed the contemnor to handover vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord on or before 31st May, 2025.
2.7.Despite such directions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to file an undertaking before the trial Court within two weeks from the date of order, i.e., 06.01.2025, no affidavit of undertaking has been filed by the contemnor before the trial Court. This, in the view of this Court, is a first disobedience which was made deliberately.
Do note, the Bench notes in para 22 that:
Legal profession is indeed a noble profession, built on the principles of justice, integrity, and service. Legal profession is rooted in a rich tradition of nobility, with lawyers serving as guardians of the law and champions of justice. Lawyers play a vital role in upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and promoting social justice. While the profession can be challenging, it is also incredibly rewarding, offering opportunities for personal and professional growth, and the chance to make a real difference in people’s lives.
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 23 that:
The position of lawyers in the Society is so high and in fact, the right of audience of lawyer by the accused is made a fundamental right in the Constitution of India under Article 22 Sub-Clause (1). It is stated that no person, who is arrested, shall be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. The practicing lawyers are, in fact, given a pride of place in the Constitution, that too, under Part-III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution. When such is the pride position given to a lawyer under the Constitution, the conduct of a person, who has entered into such noble profession, towards the Court, Society, litigants and oneself, is expected to be in the interest of the Institution rather than being on his own interest.
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 24 that:
As lawyers, it is their professional obligation to respect and comply with court orders, even if they disagree with the decision. Particularly, a lawyer who is a litigant, he has no other option except to comply with the orders of the Court. Failure to comply with Court orders will certainly result in contempt proceedings, followed by damage to professional reputation and may undermine their credibility in the eyes of the Court and clients. The conduct of the lawyers towards Court and Court orders is also emphasized in the Bar Council Rules.
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 25 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
In the case on hand, the contemnor is not an ordinary layman and he is said to be a practising lawyer for more than 30 years and is said to have held many posts in the Bar Association. However, the contemnor herein is so determined to protract the proceedings all these years. After the proceedings reached finality, despite the directions of the Constitution Court to vacate the premises within a specific time and despite the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court directing him to file an affidavit before the trial Court within two weeks from the date of the order, i.e., on 06.01.2025, the contemnor failed to file an affidavit before the trial Court.
This demeanour itself gives an impression that he is least bothered about the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. After initiation of contempt proceedings against him, the contemnor filed an affidavit before this Court, dated 09.04.2025, undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31.05.2025. However, he has not honoured his undertaking deliberately with a mala fide intention. Rather, he has been driving the petitioner, namely, the landlord, to approach the Court on several occasions.
On 05.06.2025, despite having given an undertaking before this Court that he will not go to the premises and that the Court Amin himself can take inventory, when the Court Amin visited the place, once again, the contemnor was present in the premises and made obstructions for taking inventory. This act is also nothing but a clear case of disobedience and contempt of the orders of this Court. Not stopping with that, even while filing an explanation before this Court, he has renewed his original character once again by making allegations as he did in the course of rent control proceedings. Now, the allegations are against the Head Bailiff of this Court.
But, in any event, he did not hand over possession in entirety on his own. Therefore, this Court directed the Head Bailiff to break open the premises and remove all the books and other articles from the subject premises and keep the same in the Safe Custody of this Court. Even after suffering an adverse order to that extent, the contemnor is not willing to vacate the premises on his own as undertaken by him, rather, trying to lay a new claim over the property by filing a suit for injunction in O.S.No.2898 of 2025 on the file of the XXI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, as against the landlords. This conduct, in the view of this Court, is nothing but a clear case of deliberate violation of Court orders with mala fide intention. The contemnor, with all immunity, wants to challenge the orders of the Courts on the strength of his membership in the Bar. His conduct, though will not amount to professional misconduct, will certainly fall within the ambit of other misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
If a person of this nature, showing scant respect to the Court orders and disobeying them deliberately and willfully and also exhibiting various other acts of misconduct, despite various adverse orders being passed against him as captured by this Court in the earlier orders in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024, is allowed to continue in legal profession, it will have a serious impact on the very Institution itself. Therefore, apart from the punishment that may be imposed against the contemnor in this contempt proceedings, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is directed to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the contemnor for his misconduct.
Most forthrightly, the Bench holds firmly in para 26 that:
When a lawyer himself is a litigant, he cannot take the law in his own hands to protract the proceedings. He is also subject to legal process as that of an ordinary litigant. Having dragged the rent control proceedings for all these years, but for the intervention of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the very valuable properties would not have been gone back to the original owner. He has intentionally breached his own undertaking given before this Court pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and has further caused obstructions to the execution of the Court orders. Even when he was called upon to submit his explanation for his contumacious acts, he has not come forward to tender his bona fide apologies, rather is trying to lay a new claim over the property by filing an independent suit, after the matter has reached finality.
Further, he has challenged the delivery order passed in the contempt proceedings by filing Letter Patents Appeals and the same have also been dismissed. This itself clearly indicates he has no remorse or repentance for his contumacious acts. 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. Disobedience of the orders of this Court by an Advocate itself is a serious misconduct against the Bar Council Rules and attracts contempt. The contemnor’s mala fide misconduct, deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Courts, intentional breach of his own undertaking before this Court, clearly shows the contemnor as unbecoming of a lawyer. 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 and defeat the justice granted to the other side.
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 27 that:
The manner in which the contemnor has filed various litigations clearly indicates that he himself is a party of fomenting litigations. Even after undertaking before this Court to vacate, the act of still resisting the delivery order passed by this Court, is a clear case of contempt. That apart, filing a false suit once again seeking an injunction is also a clear case of deliberate act of contempt. Besides civil contempt, his conduct also falls within the ambit of other misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings and suspension of his practice by the Bar Council.
What’s more, the Bench then holds in para 28 that:
Hence, considering the nature of the violations, deliberate and wanton disobedience of the Court orders with mala fide intention with all immunity, non-tendering of bona fide apology, rather filing further litigations to protract the matter which has reached finality, act of showing no remorse or repentance to his serious misconduct, this Court holds that the contemnor is guilty of committing civil contempt and he is liable to be punished.
Most rationally, the Bench in the fitness of things propounds in para 29 holding that:
This Court is of the view that serious punishment is warranted in this case, since the contemnor herein has been continuously violating and disobeying the orders of Court and committing contempt of Court at every stage and despite having given an undertaking that he will vacate the premises, has started his mischief again by laying a new claim in the very explanation offered in the contempt proceedings instead of showing any bona fide remorse and repentance, this Court is of the view that fine alone will not meet the ends of justice and such a person has to be sentenced to imprisonment. Accordingly, 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. As the contemnor purposefully avoided not to appear before this Court on the last date of hearing and also today, therefore, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence.
Furthermore, the Bench then also further directs in para 30 holding that, Further, this Court also issues the following directions:
- 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, as indicated in Para Nos.25 to 27 of this order.
- The articles belonging to the contemnor, including some old books, etc., which were removed from the subject premises pursuant to the orders of this Court, are now kept in the Safe Custody of this Court. 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.
- 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.
- 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 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.
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 31 that:
With the above directions, these Contempt Petitions are allowed.
In sum, we thus see that Madras High Court held advocate liable for contempt of court for breaching an undertaking to vacate the premises. The Court held that the advocate did not show any genuine remorse for his inexplicable conduct. The advocate was thus sentenced by the Madras High Court to four months of simple imprisonment and fine of Rs 2000 sending a very strong, stern and strict message that:
Be you ever so high, the law stands above you and is tallest among all. Very rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh
