Madras High Court Sentences Lawyer To 4 Months Imprisonment For Disobeying Judicial Order; Also Orders Disciplinary Action

The Madras High Court has sentenced an advocate to 4 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 for disobeying and violating its orders. Justice N Satish Kumar noted that a fine alone would not meet the ends of justice and thus decided to sentence the lawyer to 4 months' imprisonment. The court thus directed the Registry to issue a necessary warrant and directed the lawyer to be detained in civil prison. Noting that the lawyer had also failed to appear before the court in the previous hearing, the court was not inclined to suspend the sentence. “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 imprisonment for a period of four months and a fine of Rs.2,000/-,” the court said. The court passed the order on a contempt petition filed by one Vikash Kumar, highlighting that the lawyer, Advocate A Mohandass, had breached an undertaking given by him before the court to vacate the premises that he had been encroaching upon. The petitioner, Vikash Kumar, had initiated rent control proceedings against Mohandass for eviction. The court noted that Mohandass had not conducted the rent control proceedings and had tried to protract and delay it by filing various petitions. The court also noted that Mohandass had even initiated case against the counsel who appeared for the petitioner in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The rent control court had passed the order in favour of the landlord. Though an appeal was filed by Mohandass, it was dismissed by the Rent Appellate Court, and a civil revision petition was also disposed by the court directing Mohandass to vacate the premises within 2 months. Mohandass then preferred a Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court asking Mohandass to vacate the premises by 31st May, 2025. Later, the landlord filed the present contempt petition when Mohandass failed to vacate the premises by the time fixed by the court. The court noted that despite giving an undertaking, Mohandass had failed to vacate the premises and instead had initiated another civil proceeding. The court then directed the Bailiff to break open the subject premises and hand over the possession of the property to the petitioner. After this exercise was undertaken, Mohandass appeared before the court and made several allegations against the Bailiff, and even made a complaint against him before the Registrar General. On going through the explanation, the court noted that Mohandass had not shown any remorse or repentance for his continuous disobedience of the court order. The court added that being a lawyer practicing for more than 30 years and claiming to have held various posts in the bar Association, Mohandass had violated the court orders with all immunity. The court went on to remark that, being a member of the lawyer community, Mohandass was expected to show good conduct not just in court but also outside the court. The court added that when members of the legal community itself violate the court orders, it would lead to the impression that people with such immunity can violate court orders. The court added that if such conduct is allowed, it would affect the faith and confidence of the common man in the judiciary. “When a member of the legal profession is bent upon disobeying the orders of this Court, it will, in fact, lead to an opinion in the minds of public that with such immunity as a member of legal fraternity and the Bar, one can violate the orders of the Courts. If such character or disobedience is not dealt with by the Court seriously, the faith and confidence the common man reposes on the judiciary will be eroded,” the court said. The court also remarked that lawyers themselves were litigants, they could not take law in own hands and protract the proceedings. The court said that lawyers were also subjected to legal proceedings like any ordinary litigant. Noting that Mohandass did not show any remorse for his conduct, the court opined that a serious punishment was warranted. The court thus directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mohandass for his misconduct as per the Bar Council Rules. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Kushal Kumar Sancheti Counsel for Respondents: Mr. G. S. Mani ...

Madras High Court Sentences Lawyer To 4 Months Imprisonment For Disobeying Judicial Order; Also Orders Disciplinary Action

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Sentences Lawyer To 4 Months Imprisonment For Disobeying Judicial Order; Also Orders Disciplinary Action

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers