On Tuesday, the Madras High Court condemned the defending champion A. Moandoss (54 years) from Choolaimed in Chennai for four months of imprisonment after finding him guilty of contempt by the court because he was adamant that he did not call rented assets, despite specific orders issued by the Supreme Court, as well as the Supreme Court.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar even delayed the suspension of the punishment until the appeal was filing, by seriously noting the unfavorable behavior of a lawyer who had undergone a large number of problems for several years and showed modest respect for court orders against him.
The judge also ordered the Bar Association of Tamil Nadu and Puduchherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the interview because his conduct was not discovered by a lawyer. “Such serious misconduct, if it does not deal with this court with a fixed hand, will represent the license to such ruthless lawyers,” the judge said.
He pointed out that in 2006 in 2006 he took a two -storey building in Choolaimed by a person named Parsanchand. After the death of the landlord in 2009, his son P. Vikash Kumar urged a lawyer to release his property and give him unusual possession because he wanted to use it for personal purposes.
When the lawyer refused to release, Mr. Kumar filed a proposal to inspect the rent in 2015 and in 2021 he received favorable orders. An order approved by the rent was also confirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2024. Then he filed a defender before the High Court to question the order for the announcement.
Justice Kumar rejected the revision petition on 8 November 2024 and ordered a lawyer to release the premises within two months. Then the judge also ordered the Police Commissioner to release the petitioner from the leased assets for the larger Chennai if he did not do so at the specified time.
The Supreme Court also confirmed the order to release the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court extended the time to release assets until 31 May 2025 at the request of a lawyer. The refusal to adhere to the timeline led to the submission of the current contempt of the plaintiff against the lawyer.
Even after the court began to hear the indictment of contempt, the lawyer avoided the release of the premises under the pretext or forcing others to send his main judicial executor to take away his affairs. He also raised a quarrel with the main executor and filed a complaint against him with a general registrar.
The judge also found that, in addition to the landing of the landlord, Moandoss did not spare or the landlord against whom the complaint was filed according to the planned caste and planned tribes (prevention of atrocities) of 1989.
Published – 8 July 2025 20:38
