Madras High Court
A.Mohandoss vs P.Vikash Kumar on 19 September, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
2025:MHC:2240
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 29.08.2025
Pronounced on 19.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.16296 to 16299 of 2025
A.Mohandoss ...Appellant in both cases
Vs.
1.P.Vikash Kumar
2.The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
High Court of Madras Campus, Chennai.
(R2 suo motu impleaded vide order dated 22.7.25
in Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025) ...Respondents in both cases
Common Prayer: Contempt Appeals filed under Section 19(1) of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1973, to set aside the common order passed in
Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025 dated 08.07.2025.
(in both cases)
For Appellant : Mr.N.L.Rajah, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.G.Anandaraj
For R1 : Mr.K.K.Sanchetii
For R2 : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH,J.
1.1. What commenced as a tenant and landlord relationship
between the appellant and 1st respondent turned sour, commencing from
the eviction proceedings initiated before the Rent Control Courts. At the
instance of the appellant, around 40 litigations were initiated, mostly by
the appellant, from the Rent Control Court to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India. In almost all these litigations, the appellant was unsuccessful.
1.2. The last round of litigations against the orders passed by the
Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller came to be
challenged before this court in C.R.P.Nos.1773 and 1775 of 2024 by the
appellant herein. By a common order dated 08.11.2024, these revision
petitions were dismissed, with a direction to the appellant to vacate the
demised premises, within a period of two weeks from the date of the
order. Both these orders came to be challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) Nos.31055 and 31056 of 2024. On
06.01.2025, both these appeals were dismissed and the appellant was
granted time till 31.05.2025, to vacate the premises, after filing an
undertaking affidavit before the Trial Court, within a period of two
weeks from the date of the said order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
1.3. For non-compliance of the order passed in C.R.P.Nos.1773
and 1775 of 2024, the 1st respondent had initiated contempt proceedings
in Cont.P.Nos.985 and 986 of 2025 before the learned Single Judge of
this Court. During the pendency of these Contempt Petitions, the
appellant had given a written undertaking to vacate and hand over vacant
position of the property to the 1st respondent, on or before 31.05.2025.
1.4. In spite of the undertaking, the appellant had not handed over
the entire premises, which was recorded by the learned Single Judge on
04.06.2025. Thereafter, on 05.06.2025, the appellant had vacated the
premises and handed over the keys to the respondent. Ultimately, on
08.07.2025, final orders came to be passed in Cont.P.Nos.985 and 986 of
2025, holding the appellant guilty of committing civil contempt and
accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of four months and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, together with certain directions.
The relevant portion of the order dated 08.07.2025 reads as follows:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
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.
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.”
2. In the present Contempt Appeals, the aforesaid order dated
08.07.2025 is put under challenge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
3. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that the appellant has remorse to his actions and has
offered his sincere and unconditional apologies for not having adhered to
his undertakings given before the Courts of law and also for the
disobedience of various judicial orders, which according to him, was
neither intentional nor contemptuous. He had also filed four affidavits
before us, all dated 22.07.2025, undertaking to withdraw all the
litigations/complaints given by him. As per the undertaking, the appellant
had withdrawn the written complaint given by him against the
respondent herein in Crime No.157 of 2022 under the provisions of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which proceedings were
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and produced a copy of the
order passed in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.37487 of 2025 dated 22.08.2025.
4. The first affidavit is a common affidavit filed by the appellant in
the Contempt Appeals, setting forth certain undertakings, which reads as
follows:-
“7. I hereby unconditionally undertake that
myself
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
a) shall not litigate directly or indirectly any further
and will not pursue any further legal proceedings
against the subject property situated at No.13/2,
Khan Street also known at No. 19-A,
Thiruvengadapuram Main Road, Choolaimedu,
Chennai-600 094 and its owner and family
members, relatives and their advocates and will not
have any sort of claim over the property under any
pretext or reasons,
b) shall withdraw all pending civil litigations,
complaints related to the subject property before all
courts, shall not file any cases in future against the
above said property or its owners/relatives/family
members,
c) shall withdraw the complaint given by me to the
Choolaimedu Police Station on which FIR in
Cr.No:157 of 2022 is registered on 07/05/2022 for
alleged offences under the SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, as against the property owners
and their advocates namely (1) P.Vikash Kumar, (2)
Manju Bai, (3) K.K.Sancheti and (4) T.Sai Krishnan.
I hereby withdraw all the allegations contained in
the said complaint as against the abovenamed
persons. I have already addressed a letter dated 16-
07-2025 to the Police Authorities expressing my
intent to withdraw the FIR in Cr.No.157/22 pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
on the file of Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai
and not to investigate further and close the
proceedings and shall extend all possible co-
operation necessary for closure of the said case
including by way of quash petition before the
Hon'ble High Court. The copy of my letter dated 16-
07-2025 addressed to the Police Authorities is
annexed to this Affidavit and shall form part of this
Affidavit.
d) shall withdraw the complaint dated 08.05.2025
filed by me against advocates of the respondent
namely (1) K.K.Sancheti and (2) T.Sai Krishnan
before the Bar Council of Tamilnadu & Puducherry
in complaint number 254/2025 taken on file as
Confl.No.2052/2025 dated 02.07.2025 wherein
notice has been issued to advocates mentioned
therein. I have already addressed a letter dated16-
07-2025 in this regard to the Bar Council of
Tamilnadu & Puducherry and the copy of the same
is annexed to this Affidavit and shall form of this
Affidavit.
e) shall have no objection for the withdrawal of rent
deposits made by me before rent control courts by
the respondent, shall not claim any amount towards
settlement and shall not object to payment out
petition(s) that may be filed by the respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
shall not harass the respondent/his family members
any further and that I have no other or further
claims as against the respondent.”
5. Similarly, he has also addressed an affidavit dated 22.07.2025 to
the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Arumbakkam, undertaking to
withdraw/cooperate in withdrawing the proceedings under the SC & ST
Act and also sending a letter to the Police expressing his intention to
withdraw the F.I.R. in Crime No.157 of 2022, pending on the file of F-5,
Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai.
6. A similar affidavit dated 22.07.2025 has also been addressed to
the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, wherein an
unconditional undertaking has been given by the appellant to withdraw
the complaint dated 08.05.2025 before the Bar Council of Tamilnadu &
Puducherry, against the advocates of the respondent namely (1)
Mr.K.K.Sancheti and (2) Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, in complaint number
254/2025, taken on file as Confl.No.2052/2025 dated 02.07.2025.
7. Likewise, through an affidavit dated 22.07.2025 addressed to
the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, undertakings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
have been given by the appellant, in the following manner:-
“8. I hereby unconditionally undertake that
myself
a) shall not litigate directly or indirectly any further
and will not pursue any further legal proceedings
against the subject property situated at No.13/2,
Khan Street also known at No.19-A,
Thiruvengadapuram Main Road, Choolaimedu,
Chennai-600 094 and its owner and family
members, relatives and their advocates and will not
have any sort of claim over the property under any
pretext or reasons,
b) shall withdraw all pending civil litigations,
complaints related to the subject property before all
courts, shall not file any cases in future against the
above said property or its owners/relatives/family
members,
c) shall withdraw the complaint given by me to the
Choolaimedu Police Station on which FIR in
Cr.No:157 of 2022 is registered on 07/05/2022 for
alleged offences under the SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, as against the property owners
and their advocates namely (1) P.Vikash Kumar, (2)
Manju Bai, (3) K.K.Sancheti and (4) T.Sai Krishnan.
I hereby withdraw all the allegations contained in
the said complaint as against the abovenamed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
persons. I have already addressed a letter dated
16.07.2025 to the Police Authorities expressing my
intent to withdraw the FIR in Cr.No.157/22 pending
on the file of Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai
and not to investigate further and close the
proceedings and shall extend all possible co-
operation necessary for closure of the said case
including by way of quash petition before the
Hon'ble High Court.
d) shall withdraw the complaint dated 08.05.2025
filed by me against advocates of the respondent
namely (1) K.K.Sancheti and (2) T.Sai Krishnan
before the Bar Council of Tamilnadu & Puducherry
in complaint number 254/2025 taken on file as
Confl.No.2052/2025 dated 02.07.2025 wherein
notice has been issued to advocates mentioned
therein. I have already addressed a letter dated
16.07.2025 in this regard to the Bar Council of
Tamilnadu & Puducherry and the copy of the same
is annexed to this Affidavit and shall form of this
Affidavit.
e) shall have no objection for the withdrawal of rent
deposits made by me before rent control courts by
the respondent, shall not claim any amount towards
settlement and shall not object to payment out
petition(s) that may be filed by the respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
shall not harass the respondent/his family members
any further and that I have no other or further
claims as against the respondent.”
8. Likewise, on 07.08.2025, the appellant had appeared before the
Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and offered to
withdraw the complaint No.254 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025 against the
Advocates of the respondents, namely, Mr.K.K.Sanchetii and Mr.T.Sai
Krishnan. Based on his representation, the complaint came to be closed
on 07.08.2025.
9. The learned Senior Counsel, on instructions from the appellant
who was also present before us, stated that a Review Petition in R.P.(C)
Diary No.24801 of 2025 is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and based on their request, the case was to be listed on 04.09.2025, on
which date he undertook to withdraw the revision petition also. Apart
from the aforesaid lis pending inter se parties, he asserted that there are
no other litigations or complaints given by the appellant, either against
the respondent or his Lawyers. The statement made by the learned Senior
Counsel is hereby recorded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
10. It is rather unfortunate that the appellant, who is claimed to be
a practising Lawyer for the past 30 years, had indulged himself in various
litigations, apart from breaching the undertaking given by him before the
Courts of law for vacating the premises. Such breach of undertaking
would be an act of misconduct amounting to contempt, which legal ratio
has been held in several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
including the decisions in Suman Chadha and Another Vs. Central
Bank of India reported in (2021) 20 SCC 365; Babu Ram Gupta Vs.
Sudhir Bhasin reported in (1980) 3 SCC 47 and Sitaram Enterprises
Vs. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC
2493, etc.
11. The appellant has not disputed the breach of undertaking given
by him. The appellant, who is a Lawyer by profession, is required to
uphold the Rule of Law and protect the rights of the litigants. However,
by his conduct of giving scant respect to judicial orders, he had been
protracting the lis between the parties for several years. Even when
contempt proceedings were initiated against him, he had chosen to
aggravate the judicial proceedings by initiating fresh complaints against
the Lawyers of the 2nd respondent herein, as well as initiating a suit for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
injunction in O.S.No.2898 of 2025 before the XXI Assistant City Civil
Court, Chennai. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of these
aspects, had observed that the apology tendered by the appellant was not
bona fide, since he had shown no remorse or repentance of his serious
misconduct and thereby held him guilty of civil contempt.
12. In our view, such a conclusion was rightly arrived at and the
act of misconduct by the appellant definitely qualifies him to be guilty of
committing acts of civil conduct. We do not find any reasons to interfere
with this finding.
13. While punishing the contemnor for civil contempt, the learned
Single Judge had sentenced him to simple imprisonment for four months,
together with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, with a consequential direction to the
Registry to issue a warrant for committing him to civil prison. However,
the learned Single Judge was not inclined to suspend the sentence, since
he had recorded that the contemnor had purposefully avoided to appear
before this Court on the date of pronouncement of orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
14. Incidentally, during the pendency of these Contempt Appeals, a
miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.16296 of 2025 was moved by the
appellant before us, seeking for suspension of the sentence awarded on
08.07.2025 in the Contempt Petitions. By taking note of the fact that the
learned Single Judge had declined to suspend the sentence, only on the
ground that the appellant was not present before the Court, we had
granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh application before the same
learned Single Judge, on his assurance that he would physically appear
before the learned Single Judge and tender his apology. We had passed
such an interim order with a desire that the appellant would show
remorse before the learned Single Judge by being physically present and
seek for suspension of the sentence.
15. In accordance with our directions, the appellant had filed a Sub
Application in Sub.Appl.(OS) No.803 of 2025 in Cont.P.No.986 of 2025.
The learned Single Judge, however, was of the view that the Contempt
Court, after passing of the final orders, had become functus officio and
held that the plea for suspension of sentence should be canvassed only
before this Division Bench. We respectfully disagree with this finding.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
16. When we had granted liberty to the appellant to file an
appropriate application seeking for suspension of sentence before the
learned Single Judge, we had effectively granted authority to the
Contempt Court to reappraise and review its decision of declining to
suspend the sentence. In view of our specific orders granting such a
liberty, the learned Single Judge ought to have assumed powers to
adjudicate the application filed by the appellant. Expressing inability to
exercise powers, claiming the Contempt Court to have become functus
officio, is unfounded.
17. It is true that when a Court of law or an authority signs an
order, it becomes functus officio. Nevertheless, when remanded back to it
by the Appellate forum, it displaces the original authority or Court of law
from its status of functus officio and becomes in fiery the moment the
liberty granted by the Appellate Forum is invoked. Interestingly, the
learned Single Judge, though claimed to have become functus officio, had
also chosen to give a direction to the Inspector of Police to refrain from
executing the arrest warrant till 25.07.2025, which direction is
inconsistent with the findings in paragraph 8 of the order. We do not
intend to add any further on this obiter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
18. Though we have approved the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 08.07.2025 in Cont.P.Nos.985 and 986 of 2025, insofar as
the recording of guilt of civil contempt is concerned, we have taken note
of the subsequent conduct of the appellant, wherein he had tendered his
unconditional apology, both before the learned Single Judge, as well as
before this Court.
19. This conduct of putting an end to the agony of the respondent
by withdrawing all the litigations and complaints are also taken note off
by us. In consideration of these conducts, we are inclined to modify the
punishment imposed by the learned Single Judge in his order dated
08.07.2025.
20. Accordingly, the impugned order passed in Cont.P.Nos.985 and
986 of 2025 dated 08.07.2025, insofar as it sentences the appellant to
simple imprisonment for a period of four months, together with a fine of
Rs.2,000/-, is modified as follows:-
(i) The appellant shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
(ii) The further direction in the impugned order to the Bar Council
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, to initiate appropriate disciplinary action
against the appellant, is set aside.
(iii) All other observations, findings and directions in the order
dated 08.07.2025, passed in Cont.P.Nos.985 and 986 of 2025, are
confirmed.
21. In the result, both the Contempt Appeals stand partly allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.S.R.,J] [V.L.N.,J]
19.09.2025
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
To
The Chairman,
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
High Court of Madras Campus, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
hvk
Pre-delivery common judgment made in
Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025
19.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 04:30:50 pm )
