In a stern rebuke to willful disobedience of court orders by a member of the legal profession, the Madras High Court has found advocate A. Mohandass guilty of civil contempt for breaching his undertaking to vacate rented premises and disobeying judicial directives. Justice N. Sathish Kumar, in a detailed common order pronounced on July 8, 2025, sentenced Mohandass to four months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000. The court also directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for misconduct, emphasizing that such actions undermine the sanctity of the judicial process.
The case, registered as Cont.P.Nos. 985 & 986 of 2025, stemmed from contempt petitions filed by landlord P. Vikash Kumar under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Kumar sought to punish Mohandass for “daring, wilful and wanton violations” of the court’s orders in C.R.P.Nos. 1773 & 1775 of 2024, dated November 8, 2024. The petitions were argued by Mr. Kushal Kumar Sancheti for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Mani (appearing for Mr. G. Anandaraj) for the respondent. The judgment, reserved on July 2, 2025, and spanning 54 pages, meticulously chronicled Mohandass’s history of protracted litigation and non-compliance, highlighting the need to uphold judicial authority.
Background Facts: A Decade of Rent Disputes and Delaying Tactics
The dispute originated from rent control proceedings initiated by Kumar against Mohandass in RCOP Nos. 1317 & 1318 of 2015 before the XIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, seeking eviction from premises at House and Premises bearing No.19-A, Thiruvenkatasamy Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094 (also identified as Door No.132, Khan Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094, comprised in T.S.No.64, R.S.No.17/4, Block No.41). Mohandass, a practicing advocate occupying the ground floor, first floor, and second floor as a tenant, filed counters acknowledging his tenancy but engaged in numerous applications and litigations to delay the process.
The court detailed Mohandass’s conduct across multiple proceedings:
- In a Division Bench judgment dated August 1, 2018, in Rev.Appl.No.11 of 2017, the court observed that Mohandass was attempting to wriggle out of instructions given to his advocate and using review petitions to protract matters.
- In C.R.P.(PD) Nos.16 & 17 of 2021, dated April 20, 2021, the court noted Mohandass’s “bullying” of lower courts, squatting on the property without respect for legal processes, and delaying cross-examination of witness P.W.1 from November 28, 2016, for nearly five years through repeated adjournments and applications.
- In Tr.O.P.No.25 of 2022, dated August 2, 2022, the court described Mohandass’s transfer petition as another attempt to protract proceedings, taking advantage of his position as an advocate.
Additionally, Mohandass burdened the landlord with multiple cases and even filed a complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against Kumar’s counsel.
In the underlying C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024, decided on November 8, 2024, Justice Sathish Kumar dismissed Mohandass’s revisions against eviction orders, directing him to vacate by May 31, 2025, under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court empowered the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to execute eviction if needed, citing Mohandass’s history of thwarting proceedings and using caste as a weapon.
Mohandass challenged this in SLP(C) Nos.31055 & 31056 of 2024 before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the petitions on January 6, 2025, but extended the vacation deadline to May 31, 2025, subject to filing an undertaking before the trial court within two weeks. Mohandass failed to file this undertaking promptly, marking the first act of disobedience.
Breach of Undertaking and Further Violations
Despite the Supreme Court’s directive, Mohandass did not vacate by May 31, 2025. When the contempt petitions were heard on April 7, 2025, the court noted the Supreme Court order and granted time for compliance. On April 9, 2025, Mohandass filed a belated affidavit undertaking to vacate by May 31, 2025, which was recorded.
However, on June 4, 2025, during a compliance hearing, Mohandass refused to hand over possession of 100 sq.ft. in the ground floor and 700 sq.ft. in the second floor, claiming they were not covered by rent control proceedings. He handed over keys but asserted he would not enter the premises. The court directed inventory by the Head Bailiff, Mr. K.R. Ramakrishnan, on June 6, 2025, but Mohandass obstructed the process by locking the first floor and being present despite his statement.
Further, Mohandass filed a suit (O.S.No.2898 of 2025) before the XXI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking an injunction against eviction, and lodged a complaint against the Head Bailiff. On June 16, 2025, the court ordered breaking open the premises and delivery by June 30, 2025, staying the new suit.
Arguments Presented
For the petitioner, Mr. Sancheti argued that Mohandass’s actions constituted willful contempt, including breach of undertaking, failure to vacate, obstruction of inventory, and filing frivolous suits to protract matters finalized by the Supreme Court. He highlighted Mohandass’s history of delaying tactics and lack of respect for judicial sanctity.
Mohandass, in his explanation affidavit, claimed the disputed areas (100 sq.ft. ground floor and 700 sq.ft. second floor) were not part of rent control proceedings, offered an “unconditional apology,” and assured his actions were “neither intentional nor contemptuous, but rather an emotional reaction.” His counsel, Mr. Mani, asserted compliance with most of the premises and non-entry thereafter.
Legal Questions Involved and Court’s Answers
- Whether Mohandass committed civil contempt by breaching his undertaking and disobeying court orders?
The court answered affirmatively, holding that Mohandass’s failure to file the Supreme Court-mandated undertaking timely, non-vacation by May 31, 2025, obstruction of inventory, presence at premises despite statements, and filing O.S.No.2898 of 2025 constituted deliberate, mala fide violations. Citing precedents like M.Y. Shareef v. The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (AIR 1955 SC 19) and Suman Chadha v. Central Bank of India, the court emphasized that breach of undertaking is contempt, not purged by execution options. It rejected Mohandass’s claims over disputed areas as attempts to relitigate settled matters. - Whether Mohandass’s apology was bona fide and sufficient to purge the contempt?
The court ruled no, finding the apology insincere—a “single line” without remorse or repentance, contradicted by continued violations. Drawing from Peter Ramesh Kumar v. Suo Motu ((2013) 6 CTC 705), it noted apology is not a defense weapon but must reflect genuine contrition. Mohandass’s conduct, including prior indictments for bullying courts and squatting, showed no repentance. - What punishment is appropriate, considering Mohandass’s status as an advocate?
The court imposed four months’ simple imprisonment and Rs. 2,000 fine, refusing suspension due to Mohandass’s absence and persistent defiance. It stressed advocates’ duty to uphold legal sanctity, citing their constitutional pride under Part-III. Directing disciplinary action by the Bar Council, the court warned that leniency would erode public faith in judiciary. Additional directions included striking off O.S.No.2898 of 2025, inventory disposal if unclaimed, and warrant issuance.
