Advocate's 'Bullying Tactics' and Breach of Undertaking Leads to 4-Month Jail for Civil Contempt: Madras High Court

Madras High Court Sentences Advocate to 4 Months in Prison for Contempt in Decade-Long Eviction Battle

CHENNAI: In a strongly worded order highlighting the need for legal professionals to uphold the sanctity of the judicial process, the Madras High Court has sentenced a senior advocate, A. Mohandoss , to four months of simple imprisonment for civil contempt. The court found him guilty of willfully disobeying court orders and breaching a direct undertaking to vacate a property he had occupied for years, calling his conduct an attempt to "defeat the justice granted to the other side" with the "immunity of his membership in the Bar."

---

Case Background: A Litigious Tenant

The case originates from a landlord-tenant dispute that began in 2015. The landlord, P. Vikash Kumar, initiated rent control proceedings to evict his tenant, A. Mohandoss , a practicing advocate, from a property in Choolaimedu, Chennai.

Over nearly a decade, Mohandoss initiated a staggering number of legal proceedings—at least 24—which the High Court described as a deliberate strategy to "protract the proceedings to the maximum extent." Previous orders from various judges had deprecated his conduct, with one noting he was "bullying both the Courts below" and "squatting on the property without giving any respect to the very legal process."

On November 8, 2024, the High Court, exercising its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, dismissed Mohandoss 's challenge to the eviction order and directed him to vacate within two months, bypassing the standard execution proceedings to prevent further delays.

Mohandoss appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed his petition on January 6, 2025. However, the apex court granted him a final extension to vacate by May 31, 2025, on the condition that he file a formal undertaking with the trial court within two weeks.

---

Breach of Undertaking and Contempt Proceedings

The landlord filed contempt petitions after Mohandoss failed to vacate the premises by the Supreme Court's deadline. The key arguments and sequence of events leading to the conviction are as follows:

Failure to Comply: Mohandoss did not file the required undertaking within the two-week period mandated by the Supreme Court. He only filed a belated undertaking before the High Court on April 9, 2025, after contempt proceedings were initiated.

Violating the Final Deadline: Despite his new undertaking, Mohandoss did not hand over possession by May 31, 2025. Instead, on June 4, he appeared in court and attempted to re-litigate the matter, claiming rights over certain portions of the property.

Courtroom Drama and Further Defiance: On June 5, facing a detailed contempt order, Mohandoss handed over the keys in open court and stated he would not enter the premises again. However, wary of his past conduct, the court appointed a Head Bailiff to take an official inventory. The court’s order noted that Mohandoss was present during the inventory, obstructing the process in violation of his own statement.

Abuse of Process: While the contempt hearing was ongoing, Mohandoss filed a fresh civil suit (O.S.No.2898 of 2025) seeking an injunction to prevent the landlord from entering the very property he had undertaken to vacate.

---

Court's Stern Observations

The High Court delivered a scathing indictment of the advocate's conduct, emphasizing that lawyers are held to a higher standard.

"The contemnor, with all immunity, wants to challenge the orders of the Courts on the strength of his membership in the Bar. His conduct... will certainly fall within the ambit of other misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu."

The court rejected his last-minute, one-line apology, deeming it not bona fide. It noted that the apology was contradicted by the rest of his explanation, where he renewed his claims to the property and made allegations against the court-appointed Bailiff. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. , the court held:

"We do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence... Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate a Judge... has to do, is to go ahead and scandalize him, and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs him practically nothing."

The court concluded that Mohandoss 's actions constituted a "deliberate and wanton disobedience of the Court orders with mala fide intention," which, if not dealt with firmly, would amount to "giving licence to such unscrupulous lawyers to take law in their own hands."

---

Final Decision and Directions

The court found A. Mohandoss guilty of civil contempt and imposed the following penalties and directions:

1. Imprisonment: A sentence of four months of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000.

2. No Suspension of Sentence: The court refused to suspend the sentence, noting that the contemnor had purposefully avoided appearing in court for the final hearing.

3. Bar Council Action: The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry was directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mohandoss for "other misconduct."

4. Strike Off New Suit: The XXI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, was directed to immediately strike the new suit (O.S.No.2898 of 2025) off its records, terming it a "re-litigation and abuse of process of Court."

5. Possession Handed Over: The court ensured the landlord received possession by directing its Bailiff to break open the locks and remove the contemnor's belongings.

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder that the professional privilege of being an advocate carries an inviolable duty to respect the rule of law and the authority of the courts.