Madras High Court.
Madras High Court Sentences Advocate to Four Months in Jail for Defying Eviction Orders: Chennai, India – In a stern rebuke against persistent defiance of judicial orders, the Madras High Court has sentenced advocate A. Mohandass to four months of simple imprisonment for contempt of court. The sentence was handed down after the advocate repeatedly refused to vacate a rented property, despite clear eviction directives issued by both the Supreme Court and the High Court itself.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar, presiding over the case, observed that the advocate displayed no genuine remorse or regret for his actions throughout the proceedings. The Court, therefore, deemed a serious punishment necessary, sentencing him to four months in jail and imposing a fine of ₹2,000.
READ: Contractual Prosecutors Cannot Claim Regularisation: Supreme Court
N Sathish Kumar J. Madras High Court.
“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 … instead of showing any bona fide remorse and repentance … fine alone will not meet the ends of justice and such a person has to be sentenced to imprisonment,” the Court ordered on July 8.
The Court opined that failing to deal with such serious instances of misconduct and contempt with a firm hand could effectively grant unscrupulous lawyers a license to disregard the law.
It also directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mohandass. The bench added that allowing a lawyer who shows scant respect for court orders to continue in the legal profession would have a serious detrimental impact on the very institution of justice.
“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,” the Court stated.
READ: No Insurance for Legal Heirs if Driver Caused Accident by Rash Driving: Supreme Court
The genesis of the contempt case dates back to 2006, when advocate Mohandass rented a building from a man named Parsanchand. Following the landlord’s demise in 2009, his son, P. Vikash Kumar, requested the advocate to vacate the premises for his personal use. When Mohandass refused, Kumar initiated rent control proceedings in 2015, securing a favorable eviction order in 2021, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority.
The advocate then challenged this verdict before the High Court, which in 2024 ordered him to vacate the property within two months. He further appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to overturn the eviction but granted him time until May 31, 2025, to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court also mandated that the advocate file an affidavit before the High Court, undertaking to vacate within this timeframe. Mohandass eventually filed this undertaking, albeit belatedly, assuring compliance by May 31. By this time, the landlord had already filed a contempt case against the lawyer before the High Court.
READ: Delhi High Court Denies Toyota’s Patent Injunction Plea Against LMW as Patent Expires
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
However, the advocate ultimately failed to honor his undertaking. In a subsequent explanation, he made allegations against the bailiff appointed by the High Court to oversee the eviction process and maintained that a portion of the property was not covered by the rent control proceedings, which he refused to vacate.
On June 5, as the Court was preparing to pass detailed orders in the contempt case, the lawyer assured that the landlord could take control of the property and that he would not interfere. Yet, the Court noted that when a court-appointed official visited the site to oversee the eviction, Mohandass was present, created a disturbance, and attempted to obstruct the inventory process. “This aspect clearly shows that the contemnor has never shown any remorse or repentance for his bad behaviour,” the Court remarked.
The Madras High Court further emphasized that as a member of the legal fraternity, advocate Mohandass was expected to exhibit exemplary conduct both inside and outside the courtroom. “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. When a member of the legal profession is bent upon disobeying the orders of this Court, it will, in fact, lead to an opinion in the minds of public that with such immunity as a member of legal fraternity and the Bar, one can violate the orders of the Courts. If such character or disobedience is not dealt with by the Court seriously, the faith and confidence the common man reposes on the judiciary will be eroded,” the bench stated.
READ: Patna High Court Directs Bihar Government to Combat Child Trafficking in Dance, Orchestra Groups
The Court also refused to accept the apology offered by the lawyer in his affidavit, deeming it insincere. “Merely a single line in the last paragraph of the explanation filed by the contemnor to show as if he has offered his unconditional apology, in the view of this Court, cannot be construed as if he has tendered his apology bona fidely … 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,” it observed.
Advocate Kushal Kumar Sancheti appeared for the landlord. Advocates G.S. Mani and G. Anandaraj appeared for Mohandass.
READ ORDER: P Vikash Kumar Vs A Mohandass Madras High Court
