When Lawyer Himself Is Litigant, He Can’t Protract Proceedings: Madras High Court Sentences Advocate To 4 Months’ Imprisonment In Contempt Case

The Madras High Court has sentenced an Advocate to simple imprisonment of four months along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in a contempt case.

The Court was deciding Contempt Petitions arising out of breach of undertaking given by the contemnor to vacate the subject premises on or before May 31, 2025 and also for disobeying the Orders of the Court dated November 8, 2024.

A Single Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed, “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.”

The Bench added that 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.

Advocate Kushal Kumar Sancheti represented the Petitioner while Advocate G.S. Mani represented the Respondent (Contemnor).

Facts of the Case

The contemnor was a practising Advocate of Madras High Court and other Courts. He held many posts in the Bar Association as well. Rent control proceedings were initiated against him by the Petitioner before the Court of Small Causes, Chennai, for eviction. It was alleged that the contemnor had not conducted the rent control proceedings and tried to protract the proceedings to the maximum extent. He had filed several litigations and applications, one after another, to protract the rent control proceedings filed by the Petitioner. In one of the proceedings initiated by the contemnor before the Division Bench, his conduct was to somehow or the other protract the proceedings.

He showed scant respect to the Court proceedings. The Court had recorded that he was 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. The High Court had directed him to vacate the premises within 2 months and also directed the Commissioner of Police to execute the Orders for eviction of the contemnor and hand over vacant possession to the landlords. Challenging this, Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were preferred by the contemnor before the Supreme Court, which got dismissed. Despite that, no affidavit or undertaking was filed by the contemnor before the Trial Court. Hence, the landlord filed the Contempt Petitions before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above regard, noted, “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.”

The Court said that the contemnor claims to be a lawyer practising for more than 30 years and claims to have held various posts in the Bar Association and therefore, with all immunity, he has violated the Orders of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court and has also breached his own affidavit of undertaking given before the Court and still, he has not vacated the premises on his own.

“The contemnor, being a member of lawyer's community, is expected to show utmost good conduct not only in the Court but also in the Society. When a member of the legal profession is bent upon disobeying the orders of this Court, it will, in fact, lead to an opinion in the minds of public that with such immunity as a member of legal fraternity and the Bar, one can violate the orders of the Courts. If such character or disobedience is not dealt with by the Court seriously, the faith and confidence the common man reposes on the judiciary will be eroded”, it further remarked.

The Court was of the view that 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, cannot be construed as if he has tendered his apology bona fidely.

“… 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”, it added.

The Court also said that lawyers play a vital role in upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and promoting social justice and 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.

“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”, it emphasised.

Conclusion and Directions

Furthermore, the Court observed that 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, he is so determined to protract the proceedings all these years.

“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”, it said.

The Court, therefore, directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the contemnor for his misconduct. It held the contemnor guilty of committing civil contempt and noted that the fine alone will not meet the ends of justice and hence, such a person has to be sentenced to imprisonment.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Contempt Petitions.

Cause Title- P. Vikash Kumar v. A. Mohandass (Case Number: Cont.P.Nos.985 & 986 of 2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Kushal Kumar Sancheti

Respondent: Advocates G.S. Mani and G. Anandaraj.

Click here to read/download the Judgment