Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025COMMON JUDGMENTM.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.Page 2 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 20251.3. 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 Page 3 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025premises, 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 Page 4 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025from 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.Page 5 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 20253. 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 myselfPage 6 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025a) 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 Page 7 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025on 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 Page 8 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025shall 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 Page 9 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025have been given by the appellant, in the following manner:-“8. I hereby unconditionally undertake that myselfa) 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 Page 10 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025persons. 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 Page 11 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025shall 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.Page 12 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202510. 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 Page 13 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025injunction 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.Page 14 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202514. 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. Page 15 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202516. 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.Page 16 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202518. 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 Page 17 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025of 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] 19.09.2025Index:YesNeutral Citation:YesSpeaking orderhvkPage 18 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025ToThe Chairman,Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,High Court of Madras Campus, Chennai.Page 19 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.hvkPre-delivery common judgment made inCont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202519.09.2025Page 20 of 20

Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025COMMON JUDGMENTM.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.Page 2 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 20251.3. 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 Page 3 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025premises, 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 Page 4 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025from 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.Page 5 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 20253. 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 myselfPage 6 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025a) 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 Page 7 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025on 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 Page 8 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025shall 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 Page 9 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025have been given by the appellant, in the following manner:-“8. I hereby unconditionally undertake that myselfa) 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 Page 10 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025persons. 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 Page 11 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025shall 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.Page 12 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202510. 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 Page 13 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025injunction 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.Page 14 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202514. 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. Page 15 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202516. 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.Page 16 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202518. 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 Page 17 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025of 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] 19.09.2025Index:YesNeutral Citation:YesSpeaking orderhvkPage 18 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025ToThe Chairman,Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,High Court of Madras Campus, Chennai.Page 19 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.hvkPre-delivery common judgment made inCont.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 202519.09.2025Page 20 of 20