The Delhi High Court has recently sentenced a lawyer to six months in jail and fined him 2,000 after finding him guilty of contempt of court.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora highlighted that the lawyer had abused the legal process and disregarded the Court’s directions.
“This is a fit case where any leniency shown by the Court will be misinterpreted as weakness,” Justice Arora added.
The Court stated that if the lawyer is not punished for wilful default and breach of his undertakings given to the Court, he would be emboldened to exploit the legal system in the future and victimise fellow people.
The petitioners in the case were the owners of a property that the lawyer occupied and rented out for commercial reasons as paying guest accommodation.
Despite several court judgements and an assurance on his behalf, the lawyer had failed to pay the petitioners’ unpaid dues totaling to ₹32 lakh.
The lawyer indicated in his commitment that he will pay the total unpaid money in three installments within two months and vacate the property by May, 2021. However, he failed to pay the money and instead postponed vacating the property until December, 2021.
During the contempt hearings, the lawyer offered an unconditional apologies and urged the court to be kind in terms of punishment due to his young age.
Judge Arora declined to accept the apology, claiming that it was only lip-service intended to escape repercussions.
“This Court is thus of the judgement that the Respondent herein has not made an unconditional apology, and that the apology is only a lip-service and a ploy to avoid the consequences of the Respondent’s deliberate default and non-compliance.”
The Court further stated that a law-abiding individual would have quickly vacated the premises if they did not have the means to pay the usage and occupancy costs.
“Yet, it is on record that the respondent continued to use and occupy the subject property until 15.12.2021; and as has been established, he was utilising it as a paying guest lodging for income.”
The single-judge further noted that the lawyer was abusing procedural protections by creating prejudice to the petitioner by denying him ownership of the property as well as usage and occupancy charges.
“As a result, the Respondent herein attempted to utilise judicial process to enjoin the landlord from interfering with his enjoyment of the subject property and sought to use the process to reject payment of the landlord’s accepted rent of Rs. 1,60,000 per month.”
Along with the sentencing, the Court recommended that the order be conveyed to the Delhi Bar Council, which will take appropriate action against the lawyer. It was also noted that if the lawyer committed contempt of court again, he would be charged with severe contempt of court.
