Madras High Court
P.Vikash Kumar vs A.Mohandass on 8 July, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 02.07.2025
Pronounced on : 08.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
P.Vikash Kumar ... Petitioner
in both petitions
Vs.
A.Mohandass,
Advocate,
No.71, Law Chambers,
High Court Buildings,
Chennai – 600 104. … Contemnor
in both petitions
Contempt Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for daring, wilful and wanton violations
of the orders of this Court in C.R.P.Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024, dated
08.11.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.Kushal Kumar Sancheti
in both petitions
For Respondent : Mr.G.S.Mani
for Mr.G.Anandaraj
Page 1 of 55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
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.
2.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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 :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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.
2.2.3.Similarly, in a transfer application in Tr.O.P.No.25 of 2021, this
Court, by order dated 25.08.2021, has recorded the following :
“5.It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the
learned counsel for the respondents that there are at least 24
proceedings which have been initiated by the petitioner
against the respondents. He submitted that the petitioner, by
suppressing the petition for extension of time for paying costs
which was ordered in C.M.P. No.8863 & 8864 of 2021, filed
SLP. Nos.9680 & 9681 of 2021, before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
these previous proceedings clearly show that the intention of
the petitioner is just to protract the proceedings by not
allowing the present RCOP's to reach its logical conclusion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
6.The narration of sequence of events shows that the
present litigation has been continuing from the year 2015.
Prima facie, it shows that the petitioner is not cooperating
with the Court for proceeding with the enquiry. He has taken
all steps to protract the proceedings. In fact, some scathing
and adverse remarks have been passed against the petitioner
in C.R.P. No.716 & 717 of 2021. This Court is not inclined to
repeat that again. Suffice it is to say that the petitioner is
taking advantage of his position as an advocate and has been
protracting the proceedings. It is not as though the learned
Rent Controller has some personal interest in these R.C.O.P's.
These R.C.O.P's. are of the year 2015 and comes under
category of 'More than five year old cases. The Courts are
expected to give priority in disposal of the old cases,
especially the cases which are pending for more than five
years. There is a specific direction given to the learned Rent
Controller in C.R.P. Nos.708 & 709 of 2017, for disposing the
case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
that order. The order was passed on 07.03.2017. Till now, the
R.C.O.P's. are not yet disposed. It was mainly due to the
attitude of the petitioner in protracting the proceedings.
7.This transfer petition, in the view of this Court, is yet
another attempt on the part of the petitioner to further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
protract the proceedings by filing petitions against the
learned Rent Controller.”
(emphasis supplied)
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.
2.4.This Court, while disposing of the Civil Revision Petitions in
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024 challenging the eviction order
passed by the Rent Controller which was confirmed by the Rent Appellate
Court, has passed the following order on 08.11.2024, by invoking the
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India :
“38.Taking note of the above circumstances, this Court
cannot shirk its responsibility while exercising powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even if this revision
petition stands just dismissed, no purpose will be served. In
India, in our experience, the real litigation starts only when the
execution petition is filed. Having dragged the landlord to run
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
from pillar to post and subjected to various litigations all these
years in a rent control proceedings, considering the nature of
the attitude and conduct of the member of Bar who also used a
caste as a weapon not only against the landlord but also
against the lawyer who appeared for the landlord, this Court is
of the view that if the parties are once against relegated for
execution proceedings, there is every likelihood that the
revision petitioner will resort all sort of proceedings to thwart
delivery of possession. Thus, this Court exercising powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India direct the
revision petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of
two months from today. This order has been passed taking note
of the conduct of the revision petitioner all these years in
various litigations for the ends of justice in the Hari Vishnu
Kamath vs. Syed Ahmed Ishaque and others reported in (1954)
2 SCC 881, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, further directions can be
issued by High Court.
39.Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Ondimuthu @ N.O.Muthu vs. Arulmigu Meenakshi
Sundareswarar Devasthanam, Madurai reported in 2018 (6)
CTC 709 has held that when there is a delay in protracting the
execution proceedings, delivery of the property can be ordered
by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
India.”
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 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.
3.When the matter stood thus, the landlord has filed the present
Contempt Petitions. When the Contempt Petitions were taken up for
hearing on 07.04.2025, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Special Leave Petitions, dated 06.01.2025, was brought to the notice of this
Court, and therefore, this Court passed the following order on 07.04.2025 :
“These contempt Petitions have been filed for violation
of the Order of this Court passed in CRP.Nos.1773 & 1775 of
2024 dated 08.11.2024.
2.This Court, taking note of the delaying tactics of the
respondent and several proceedings have been initiated by the
member of a Bar, by invoking Article 227 of Constitution of
India directed eviction of premises within a period of two
months from the date of Order. The said Order has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP
Nos.31055 & 31056 of 2024 wherein the Honourable Supreme
Court has passed the following Order :
“We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order(s) passed by the High Court.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner
requested that some time may be granted to the
petitioner to vacate the premises in question in order to
find alternate accommodation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, we grant time to the petitioner to vacate the
premises till 31st May, 2025 subject to the petitioner’s
filing the usual undertaking in this regard before the
Trial Court within two weeks from today. The petitioner
shall handover vacant and peaceful possession to the
respondent(s) on or before 31st May, 2025.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.”
3.Mr.G.Anandaraj, learned counsel takes notice for the
respondent and undertakes to file an affidavit of undertaking
that he will vacate the premises on or before 31.05.2025, by
next week.
4.Post on 16.04.2025 for filing affidavit by the
respondent before this Court.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
4.Again, when the Contempt Petitions were taken up on 16.04.2025,
this Court passed the following order :
“In pursuant to the common order dated 07.04.2025, the
contemnor has filed an affidavit of undertaking to vacate the
premises on or before 31.05.2025. The said affidavit of
undertaking is taken on record. It is made clear that affidavit
as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not filed in time,
despite the same, this Court has accepted his affidavit.
Therefore, if the undertaking as undertaken before this Court
has not complied and possession is not handed over on or
before 31.05.2025, no enquiry is required except for imposing
punishment.
2.Post on 04.06.2025 for compliance.”
5.It is relevant to note that, the affidavit dated 09.04.2025, though
filed belatedly before this Court, to vacate the premises on or before
31.05.2025, was taken on record. The contemnor has clearly stated that in
his affidavit, dated 09.04.2025, that he undertakes to vacate the premises
and hand over vacant possession of the same to the petitioner on or before
31.05.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
6.Despite such undertaking given before this Court in pursuance of
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to vacate the premises on or before
31.05.2025, the contemnor did not vacate the premises. When the
Contempt Petition came before this Court for reporting compliance on
04.06.2025, this Court passed the following order :
“This court by order dated 16.04.2025 directed the
contemnor to handover the premises on or before 31.05.2025.
2.Contemnor is present before this court today. 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. He is
not in a position to show repentance to his activities. Hence,
post this matter on 05.06.2025 for further hearing.
The contemnor to be present on 05.06.2025.”
7.The matter was adjourned to 05.06.2025, insisting the presence of
the contemnor on that day. On 05.06.2025, this Court passed the following
detailed order :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
“These contempt petitions have been filed seeking to
punish the respondent/contemnor for having violated the
common order of this court dated 08.11.2024 made in
C.R.P.Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024.
2.This court ordered for eviction of the
respondent/contemnor taking note of the fact that he being the
practising lawyer, filed several litigations against the
petitioner in the contempt petitions. The details of those
litigations have been captured in the order passed in the Civil
Revision Petitions under these contempt petitions. The
operative portion of the common order dated 08.11.2024 made
in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1773 and 1775 of 2024 reads as follows:
“40.Accordingly, these revision petitions stand
dismissed with the following directions:
a. that the petitioner shall vacate the premises
within a period of two months from today.
b. Failure on the part of revision petitioner in
obeying the order of this Court, The Commissioner of
Police, Chennai is directed to execute the order of this
Court and vacate the revision petitioner from the
premises and handover the vacant possession to
landlords.
c.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai shall
vacate the revision petitioner or any other person
claiming right under revision petitioner from the
premises. Further, to above direction, in the event of
disobeying the orders of this Court by the revision
petitioner, he will be proceeded for contempt of Court.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
3.1.Challenging the order of this court in the above Civil
Revision Petitions, the respondent herein filed Special Leave
Petitions in SLP (C) Nos.31055 & 31056 of 2024 and the same
were dismissed on 06.01.2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has however extended the time for handing over the subject
premises till 31.05.2025. The relevant portion of the order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:-
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
we grant time to the petitioner to vacate the premises till
31st May, 2025 subject to the petitioner's filing the usual
undertaking in this regard before the Trial Court within
two weeks from today. The petitioner shall handover
vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent(s) on
or before 31st May, 2025.”
3.2.Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the respondent/contemnor filed an affidavit of
undertaking dated 09.04.2025 before this court undertaking to
vacate the subject premises and handover the vacant
possession to the petitioner in the contempt petitions on or
before 31.05.2025.
3.3.Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
respondent did not hand over the subject premises before
31.05.2025 as undertaking by him before this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
4.When the contempt petitions came up for hearing
before this court on 04.06.2025, the respondent took a stand
that he will handover the possession of in respect of ground
and first floor only. He has stated that he will not handover
possession in respect of 100 square feet as the same was not
covered under the rent control proceedings.
5.This court on 04.06.2025 observed as follows and
directed the matter to be listed today:-
“This court by order dated 16.04.2025 directed
the contemnor to handover the premises on or before
31.05.2025.
2.Contemnor is present before this court today.
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. He is not in a position to show
repentance to his activities. Hence, post this matter on
05.06.2025 for further hearing.
The contemnor to be present on 05.06.2025.”
6.Today, this court has heard the contemnor at length.
7.The respondent/contemnor is present.
8.This court is of the view that the contemnor is trying
only to delay the eviction process some how or other. When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
this court was about to pass a detailed order on contempt
petitions on merits, the respondent/contemnor submitted that
he will not enter the subject premises hereafter and petitioner
can take physical possession himself.
9.Today, the respondent/contemnor filed an affidavit
alleging so many allegations on various matters. He, however,
during the course of hearing of the matters, specifically stated
that he will not enter the subject premises from today onwards.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the contemnor
also asserted before this court that the respondent/contemnor
informed him that he will not enter the subject premises
hereafter.
11.The respondent/contemnor submitted that possession
of the entire subject premises can be taken by the petitioner
himself and by saying so, he handed over the keys across the
bar to the learned counsel for the
petitioner/respondent/landlord.
12.In view of the above development, the petitioner in
the contempt petitions will take physical delivery of the subject
premises forthwith.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
13.Having given an undertaking to vacate the premises
and handover the keys, if any further violation is taken place,
the matter will be viewed seriously and contempt petition will
be decided on its own merits.
14.The learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor
stated that there are case bundles, books and furniture in the
subject premises.
15.When this court requested learned counsel for the
respondent/contemnor to make himself available at the
premises and see that the belongings of the
respondent/contemnor are taken tomorrow and handed over to
the respondent/contemnor, since the contemnor is not
interested and willing to go to the premises, the learned
counsel for the respondent/contemnor submitted that he is not
available this week and next week. The learned counsel for
respondent/contemnor as well as the contemnor would
however submit that the petitioner/respondent/landlord himself
can be directed to take inventory of the articles belonging to
the respondent/contemnor available in the office premises and
submit the inventory list before this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
16.This court is however of the opinion that taking
inventory in the absence of the respondent/contemnor will lead
to further complications and would give a room to make
further allegations. In such view of the matter, this court in
order to give quietus, direct Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, Head
Bailiff, Madras High Court (Cell No. 0444354504) to go to the
subject premises along with the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the contempt petitions and take inventories of the
articles owned and kept by the respondent/contemnor on
06.06.2025. The Head Bailiff is also directed to videograph the
entire process of inventory.
17.The description of the subject premises is as under:-
House and Premises bearing No.19-A,
Thiruvenkatapuram, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600
094 also identified as Door No.13/2, Khan Street,
Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094, comprised in
T.S.No.64, Old Survey No.17/4, Block No.16 of
109, Puliyur Village, EgmoreNungambakkam
Taluk, Chennai.
18.The Inspector of Police, Choolaimedu Police Station
shall afford adequate protection and see that the entire
inventory process is completed smoothly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
19.It is stated by the respondent/contemnor that he has
already filed a Miscellaneous Application in Diary No.24930
of 2025 in Review Petition (C) Diary No.24801 of 2025 before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is pending. The said
statement is recorded.
20.In the event the contemnor succeeds in the pending
matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court will take care of right and the interest
of the petitioner.
21.Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, Head Bailiff, Madras High
Court shall file a brief report along with his inventory and also
video footages on 02.07.2025.
22.The charges in respect of videographing shall be
borne by the petitioner in the contempt petitions.
Post on 02.07.2025.”
8.Though the matter stood adjourned to 02.07.2025, on mentioning
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was again listed on
16.06.2025. At the risk of repetition, the order passed by this Court on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
16.06.2025, is reproduced hereunder :
“These contempt petitions have been filed seeking to
punish the respondent for having violated the common order of
this court dated 08.11.2024 made in C.R.P.No.1773 and 1775
of 2024.
2.These contempt petitions were, though, directed to be
listed on 02.07.2025, on a mention made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner herein on 11.06.2025, they are listed
today.
3.On 05.06.2025, this court has passed passed the
following order on these contempt petitions:
“These contempt petitions have been filed seeking
to punish the respondent/contemnor for having violated
the common order of this court dated 08.11.2024 made
in C.R.P.Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024.
2.This court ordered for eviction of the
respondent/contemnor taking note of the fact that he
being the practising lawyer, filed several litigations
against the petitioner in the contempt petitions. The
details of those litigations have been captured in the
order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions under these
contempt petitions. The operative portion of the common
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
order dated 08.11.2024 made in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1773
and 1775 of 2024 reads as follows:
“40.Accordingly, these revision petitions stand
dismissed with the following directions:
a. that the petitioner shall vacate the premises
within a period of two months from today.
b. Failure on the part of revision petitioner in
obeying the order of this Court, The Commissioner of
Police, Chennai is directed to execute the order of this
Court and vacate the revision petitioner from the
premises and handover the vacant possession to
landlords.
c.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai shall
vacate the revision petitioner or any other person
claiming right under revision petitioner from the
premises. Further, to above direction, in the event of
disobeying the orders of this Court by the revision
petitioner, he will be proceeded for contempt of Court.”
3.1.Challenging the order of this court in the
above Civil Revision Petitions, the respondent herein
filed Special Leave Petitions in SLP (C) Nos.31055 &
31056 of 2024 and the same were dismissed on
06.01.2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has however
extended the time for handing over the subject premises
till 31.05.2025. The relevant portion of the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:-
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
we grant time to the petitioner to vacate the premises till
31st May, 2025 subject to the petitioner's filing the usual
undertaking in this regard before the Trial Court within
two weeks from today. The petitioner shall handover
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent(s) on
or before 31st May, 2025.”
3.2.Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the respondent/contemnor filed an
affidavit of undertaking dated 09.04.2025 before this
court undertaking to vacate the subject premises and
handover the vacant possession to the petitioner in the
contempt petitions on or before 31.05.2025.
3.3.Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
respondent did not hand over the subject premises
before 31.05.2025 as undertaking by him before this
court.
4.When the contempt petitions came up for
hearing before this court on 04.06.2025, the respondent
took a stand that he will handover the possession of in
respect of ground and first floor only. He has stated that
he will not handover possession in respect of 100 square
feet as the same was not covered under the rent control
proceedings.
5.This court on 04.06.2025 observed as follows
and directed the matter to be listed today:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
“This court by order dated 16.04.2025 directed
the contemnor to handover the premises on or before
31.05.2025.
2.Contemnor is present before this court today. 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. He is not in a position to show
repentance to his activities. Hence, post this matter on
05.06.2025 for further hearing.
The contemnor to be present on 05.06.2025.”
6.Today, this court has heard the contemnor at
length.
7.The respondent/contemnor is present.
8.This court is of the view that the contemnor is
trying only to delay the eviction process some how or
other. When this court was about to pass a detailed
order on contempt petitions on merits, the
respondent/contemnor submitted that he will not enter
the subject premises hereafter and petitioner can take
physical possession himself.
9.Today, the respondent/contemnor filed an
affidavit alleging so many allegations on various
matters. He, however, during the course of hearing of
the matters, specifically stated that he will not enter the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
subject premises from today onwards.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the
contemnor also asserted before this court that the
respondent/contemnor informed him that he will not
enter the subject premises hereafter.
11.The respondent/contemnor submitted that
possession of the entire subject premises can be taken by
the petitioner himself and by saying so, he handed over
the keys across the bar to the learned counsel for the
petitioner/respondent/landlord.
12.In view of the above development, the
petitioner in the contempt petitions will take physical
delivery of the subject premises forthwith.
13.Having given an undertaking to vacate the
premises and handover the keys, if any further violation
is taken place, the matter will be viewed seriously and
contempt petition will be decided on its own merits.
14.The learned counsel for the
respondent/contemnor stated that there are case
bundles, books and furniture in the subject premises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
15.When this court requested learned counsel for
the respondent/contemnor to make himself available at
the premises and see that the belongings of the
respondent/contemnor are taken tomorrow and handed
over to the respondent/contemnor, since the contemnor
is not interested and willing to go to the premises, the
learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor submitted
that he is not available this week and next week. The
learned counsel for respondent/contemnor as well as the
contemnor would however submit that the
petitioner/respondent/landlord himself can be directed
to take inventory of the articles belonging to the
respondent/contemnor available in the office premises
and submit the inventory list before this court.
16.This court is however of the opinion that taking
inventory in the absence of the respondent/contemnor
will lead to further complications and would give a room
to make further allegations. In such view of the matter,
this court in order to give quietus, direct
Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, Head Bailiff, Madras High
Court (Cell No. 0444354504) to go to the subject
premises along with the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the contempt petitions and take inventories
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
of the articles owned and kept by the
respondent/contemnor on 06.06.2025. The Head Bailiff
is also directed to videograph the entire process of
inventory.
17.The description of the subject premises is as
under:-
House and Premises bearing No.19-A,
Thiruvenkatapuram, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094
also identified as Door No.13/2, Khan Street,
Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094, comprised in
T.S.No.64, Old Survey No.17/4, Block No.16 of 109,
Puliyur Village, EgmoreNungambakkam Taluk,
Chennai.
18.The Inspector of Police, Choolaimedu Police
Station shall afford adequate protection and see that the
entire inventory process is completed smoothly.
19.It is stated by the respondent/contemnor that he
has already filed a Miscellaneous Application in Diary
No.24930 of 2025 in Review Petition (C) Diary
No.24801 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the same is pending. The said statement is recorded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
20.In the event the contemnor succeeds in the
pending matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will take care of
right and the interest of the petitioner.
21.Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, Head Bailiff, Madras
High Court shall file a brief report along with his
inventory and also video footages on 02.07.2025.
22.The charges in respect of videographing shall
be borne by the petitioner in the contempt petitions.
Post on 02.07.2025.”
3.Mr K.K. Ramakrishnan, Head Bailiff of this court,
pursuant to the abovementioned order of this court, visited the
subject premises, took inventory of the articles as directed by
this court, and submitted a report along with lists of inventory,
photographs, and a pendrive containing footage of the entire
process of inventory.
4.The report of the Head Bailiff would indicate that the
respondent was also present at the premises; however, the key
of the first floor was not given, and the door was found locked.
The very presence of the respondent, despite having made a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
statement that he would not enter upon the premises any more,
would also amount to disobedience of the order of this court.
These all would go to show that the respondent has scant
regard for the orders of the High Court and the Honourable
Supreme Court. The respondent takes advantage of his position
of being a practising Advocate. He is bent upon disobeying the
order of this court.
5.It is also brought to the notice of this court that the
respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.2898 of 2025 on the file
of the XXI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, for an
injunction restraining P. Vikas Kumar, the petitioner herein,
and his mother and their henchmen from entering into the
subject premises. The filing of an injunction suit after having
given an undertaking before the court to vacate and hand over
the peaceful possession of the subject premises would itself
amount to utter violation of the orders of this court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
breach of undertaking given by the respondent before this
court by not handing over the subject premises, the learned
XXI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, is directed
not to proceed further in the suit in O.S.No.2898 of 2025.
6.The Bailiff (s) of this court is directed to break open
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
the subject premises and hand over possession of the entire
premises to the petitioner. The description of the subject
premises has already been captured in the earlier order of this
Court dated 05.06.2025, extracted above.
7.Delivery by 30.06.2025. The Bailiff (s) shall
videograph the entire process of delivery and produce the
video footages before this court along with delivery report. The
cost of videographing shall be borne by the petitioner herein.
8.The Bailiff (s) shall remove the articles mentioned in
the list(s) of inventory at the cost of the petitioner herein and
keep them in the safe custody at the High Court. The Registrar
General is directed to provide necessary accommodation to the
Bailiff (s) of this court to keep the articles removed from the
subject premises in safe custody.
9.The Bailiff (s) shall file his report by 02.07.2025.
10.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City,
is directed to ensure adequate police protection is provided to
the Bailiff (s) to effect delivery of the subject premises as
directed by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
11.It is relevant to note here that despite several
indictments made by the courts in various proceedings which
had already been captured by this court in its common order
dated 08.11.2024 made in C.R.P. Nos. 1773 & 1775 of 2024,
the respondent still continues to disobey the orders of this
court. The respondent committed a clear breach of undertaking
given before this court by not handing over the vacant
possession of the subject premises on or before 31.05.2025.
Therefore, this court is of the view that it is a clear case of
contempt of breach of undertaking given by him before this
court and the respondent should be dealt with with an iron
hand.
12.The respondent is hereby called upon to file his
explanation as to why he should not be punished for having
committed contempt of breach of undertaking given by him
before the court on or before 30.06.2025.
13.Call this matter on 02.07.2025.
14.The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras is
directed to keep the report of the Head Bailiff, photographs
and the pendrive containing the footages of the inventory
process in safe custody.”
9.As per the directions of this Court dated 16.06.2025, the Head
Bailiff has effected delivery on 30.06.2025 and has filed a report dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
01.07.2025 to that effect. Thereafter, the matter came before this Court on
02.07.2025. Only for the purpose of filing an explanation by the
contemnor, the matter had been listed on that day. However, the contemnor
was not present. Mr.G.Anandaraj, learned counsel who was appearing
earlier for the contemnor, was also not present. Mr.G.S.Mani, learned
counsel, appeared for the contemnor, and filed a Common Explanation
Affidavit of the contemnor, dated 30.06.2025.
10.The contemnor was not present before this Court on 02.07.2025,
despite the fact that he was directed to file an explanation. Be that as it
may, the explanation in the form of Common Explanation Affidavit filed by
the counsel for the contemnor, when carefully read in entirety, would show
that the contemnor has made several allegations against the Head Bailiff,
who was directed to take inventory and remove the articles of the
contemnor by earlier orders of this Court. Apart from making such
allegations, the explanation further indicates that the contemnor has also
made a complaint against the Head Bailiff before the Registrar General of
this Court. Further, it is stated in the explanation that the contemnor has
handed over the keys before this Court except for 100 sq.ft in the Ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
Floor and 700 sq.ft in the Second Floor. According to him, those areas are
not covered under the rent control proceedings and therefore, he is entitled
to retain possession of the same. Further, in the last paragraph of the
explanation affidavit, he has stated that he offers his sincere and
unconditional apology and further assured this Court that his act was
neither intentional nor contemptuous, but rather an emotional reaction.
11.The very nature of the explanation of the contemnor filed before
this Court indicates that he has not shown any remorse or repentance for his
continuous disobedience of the orders of this Court. Once again, he has
started laying claim over the premises in which he was originally inducted
as a tenant. In the additional counter filed by the contemnor, in the rent
control proceedings, he has admitted that he was inducted as a tenant not
only in respect of Ground Floor and First Floor, but also Second Floor.
This fact has been clearly recorded by this Court in the order in
C.R.P.Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024. Once again, laying a
claim over 100 sq.ft in the Ground Floor and 700 sq.ft in the Second Floor,
is nothing but one more attempt, somehow or the other, to violate the orders
of this Court, showing scant respect to the Court orders. The very nature of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
the explanation filed by the contemnor, the complaint lodged against the
Head Bailiff, and filing of yet another suit in O.S.No.2898 of 2025 on the
file of the XXI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for bare injunction
against the landlords, is nothing but a deliberate disobedience of the orders
of this Court, with a mala fide intention, and also a wanton breach of the
undertaking given by him before this Court.
12.Further, it is relevant to note that he has also filed Letters Patent
Appeals against the orders of this Court in these Contempt Petitions, dated
16.06.2025, in L.P.A.Nos.25 & 26 of 2025, and the said Appeals have also
been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 26.06.2025.
13.The contemnor claims to be a lawyer practising for more than 30
years and claims to have held various posts in the Bar Association.
Therefore, with all immunity, he has violated the orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as the orders of this Court and has also breached his
own affidavit of undertaking given before this Court and still, he has not
vacated the premises on his own.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
14.On 05.06.2025, when the contemnor was present before this
Court, when this Court was about to pass detailed orders in these Contempt
Petitions on merits, he submitted before this Court that the petitioner can
take physical possession himself and he will not enter the subject premises
from that day. His version was also asserted by the counsel who appeared
for him on that day. However, this Court, taking note of the previous
conduct of the contemnor, anticipated further complications on taking
inventory in the absence of the contemnor and therefore, directed the Head
Bailiff of this Court to take inventory and also to videograph the entire
process of taking inventory. Despite having undertaken before this Court
that he will not enter the premises, when the Court Amin visited the
premises, the contemnor was also very much present in the premises and he
has made hue and cry and in fact, he has caused obstruction for taking
inventory. This aspect clearly shows that the contemnor has never shown
any remorse or repentance for his bad behaviour.
15.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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.
16.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. The explanation in entirety, in fact, tends to show that
he has started to lay another claim over the property once again, after the
matter has reached finality. Therefore, when the apology has not been
tendered bona fidely and there is no indication to show that the contemnor
has shown remorse or repentance to his contumacious acts, merely based on
a single line apology, that too, without bona fides, the deliberate and willful
violation and disobedience of the orders of the Court by a member of the
Bar, cannot be condoned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
17.A Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Peter Ramesh Kumar
v. Suo Motu reported in (2013) 6 CTC 705, has taken note of the judgment
in M.Y.Shareef v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur
reported in AIR 1955 SC 19, wherein, it is held as follows :
“45..... With regard to apology in proceedings for
contempt of court, it is well-settled that an apology is not a
weapon of defense to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is
it intended to operate as a universal, panacea, but it is
intended to be evidence of real contriteness & similar
observations were made by this Court in the case of L.D.
Jaikwal v. State of U.P. (MANU/SC/0077/1984 : (1984) 3 SCC
405), wherein this Court held as under:
6.We do not think that merely because the appellant has
tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence
and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a
person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the
grossest imputations against him has to do, is to go
ahead and scandalize him, and later on tender a formal
empty apology which costs him practically nothing. If
such an apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not
as an exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a
"licence" to scandalize courts and commit contempt of
court with impunity.....”
(emphasis supplied)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
18.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Suman Chadha and
another v. Central Bank of India reported in (2021) 20 SCC 365, has held
as follows :
“16.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 under Section 2(b) of
the Act. But the Court has always seen (i) the nature of the
undertaking made; (ii) the benefit if any, reaped by the party
giving the undertaking; and (iii) whether the filing of the
undertaking was with a view to play fraud upon the court or to
hoodwink the opposite party. The distinction between an order
passed on consent terms and an order passed solely on the
basis of an undertaking given to court and the distinction
between a person playing fraud on the court thereby
obstructing the course of justice and a person playing fraud on
one of the parties, was brought out by this Court in Babu Ram
Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin, (1980) 3 SCC 47 in the following
words:-
“…Indeed, if we were to hold that non-compliance of a
compromise decree or consent order amounts to
contempt of court, the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure relating to execution of decrees may not be
resorted to at all. In fact, the reason why a breach of
clear undertaking given to the court amounts to
contempt of court is that the contemner by making a
false representation to the court obtains a benefit for
himself and if he fails to honour the undertaking, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
plays a serious fraud on the court itself and thereby
obstructs the course of justice and brings into disrepute
the judicial institution. The same cannot, however, be
said of a consent order or a compromise decree where
the fraud, if any, is practised by the person concerned
not on the court but on one of the parties. Thus, the
offence committed by the person concerned is qua the
party not qua the court, and, therefore, the very
foundation for proceeding for contempt of court is
completely absent in such cases.”
(emphasis supplied)
19.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin
Hasan Daya and another reported in (2004) 1 SCC 360, has held as
follows :
“12.The submission of Shri R.F. Nariman, learned
counsel for the respondents, that this Court having passed a
consent decree, the remedy of the petitioner lay in executing
the same and there was no occasion for initiating contempt
proceedings against the respondents has hardly any merit. The
willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court amounts to
"civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the
Contempt of Courts Act. The respondents having committed
breach of the undertaking given to this Court in the consent
terms filed on 28.7.1999, they are clearly liable for having
committed contempt of Court. The fact that the petitioner can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
execute the decree can have no bearing on the contempt
committed by the respondents. The law in England on the
subject of breach of undertaking given to Court is same. In
Volume 9(1) Halsbury's Laws of England Para 482, it has
been stated as under :
"An undertaking given to the court in pending
proceedings by a person or corporation (or by a
government department or Minister of the Crown acting
in his official capacity) on the faith of which the court
sanctions a particular course of action or inaction, has
the same force as an injunction made by the court and a
breach of the undertaking is misconduct amounting to
contempt."”
20.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj
Vardichand Jain reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 2493, has held as
follows :
““Disregarding a Court's order may seem bold, but the
shadows of its consequences are long and cold.”
1.Contempt of court is a serious legal infraction that
strikes at the very soul of justice and the sanctity of legal
proceedings. It goes beyond from mere defiance of a Court's
authority, but also denotes a profound challenge to the
principles that underpin the rule of law. At its core, it is a
profound disavowal of the respect and adherence to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
judicial process, posing a concerning threat to integrity of
judicial system. When a party engages in contempt, it does
more than simply refusing to comply with a Court's order. By
failing to adhere to judicial directives, a contemnor not only
disrespects the specific order, but also directly questions the
Court's ability to uphold the rule of law. It erodes the public
confidence in the judicial system and it's ability to deliver
justice impartially and effectively. Therefore, power to punish
for Contempt of Court's order is vital to safeguard the
authority and efficiency of the judicial system. By addressing
and penalizing contemptuous conduct, the legal system
reinforces its own legitimacy and ensures that judicial orders
and proceedings are taken seriously. This deterrent effect
helps to maintain the rule of law and reinforces public's faith
in the judicial process, ensuring that Courts can function
effectively without undue interference or disrespect.
2.Contempt powers are integral to maintaining the
sanctity of judicial proceedings. The ability to address
contempt ensures that the authority of the court is respected
and that the administration of justice is not hampered by
willful disobedience. In the said context, the power of this
Court to punish for contempt is a cornerstone of its authority,
integral to the administration of justice and the maintenance
of its own dignity. Enshrined in Article 129 of the Constitution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
of India, this power is essential for upholding the rule of law
and ensuring due compliance by addressing actions that
undermine its authority, obstruct its proceedings, or diminish
the public trust and confidence in the judicial system.
3.The Courts ordinarily take lenient approach in a case
of some delay in compliance of the orders, unless the same is
deliberate and willful, on confronting the conduct of the
contemnor that strikes the very heart of judicial authority.
Undoubtedly, this appalling breach of legal decorum has in its
face challenged the sanctity of the orders passed by this Court
and hence we are constrained to examine Contemnor/tenant's
willful and deliberate act of non-compliance of the order and
also the undertaking furnished by him as directed.”
21.In the latest judgment in M/s.Chitra Woods Manors Welfare
Association v. Shaji Augustine reported in (2025) 3 MLJ 747 (SC), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misuse of the process of Court with an
intent to tarnish the image of judiciary, threatening the integrity, and the
efficiency of the judicial system cannot be allowed to be overlooked and
ignored in the garb of non-fulfillment of the directions because of now said
to be faced financial constraints.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
22.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.
23.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
on his own interest.
24.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.
25.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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.
26.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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.
27.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
and suspension of his practice by the Bar Council.
28.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.
29.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
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.
30.Further, this Court also issues the following directions :
i. 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.
ii. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
iii. 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.
iv. 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.
v. 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.
31.With the above directions, these Contempt Petitions are allowed.
08.07.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Copy to
1.The IX Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
2.The XIII Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
3.The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
4.The Registrar (Judicial),
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
5.The Joint Registrar (O.S.)
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
6.The Chairman,
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
High Court Campus,
Chennai.
7.The XXI Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
8.Mr.A.Mohandoss,
Advocate,
No. 71, Law Chambers,
High Court Buildings,
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn
Common Order in
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025
08.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 07:20:01 pm )
