Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment

"Saying Sorry Does Not Make the Slapper Poorer — Apology Shall Not Be a Paper Apology; Expression of Sorrow Should Come From the Heart and Not From the Pen", Andhra Pradesh High Court sentenced a litigant to one month's simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for wilful disobedience of a court order, after he executed both a mortgage deed and a registered sale deed over a disputed property in clear violation of a restraint order passed by the same court.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam rejected the contemnor's apology as not bona fide, holding that an apology tendered only when punishment is imminent is the act of a cringing coward.

A suit for partition was filed before the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, bearing O.S. No. 139 of 2009, which was decreed on September 6, 2017. The defendant-appellant, Nagatham Mukunda Reddy, challenged the decree in Appeal A.S. No. 1280 of 2017 before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought release of original documents from the court registry. By order dated July 16, 2021, the High Court allowed the release subject to strict conditions — the appellant could not create any third-party rights over the suit properties, could not pledge or mortgage the original documents, and was required to return the documents at the time of hearing.

The appellant thereafter filed an application seeking modification of this order to permit pledging the property for a bank loan, specifically citing financial hardship. That application was rejected on August 4, 2022. Despite both the restraint order and the rejection of his modification application, the appellant executed a mortgage deed in August 2023 and then a registered sale deed in December 2024 in favour of third parties. The contempt petition was filed by the respondents.

Wilful Disobedience Proved

The Court found that the execution of both the mortgage deed and the sale deed was admitted by the contemnor. There was no dispute about the facts. The interim order of July 16, 2021 unambiguously restrained him from creating third-party rights or pledging the property. He had applied for modification of that very order and was refused. Yet, he proceeded to alienate the property.

The Court applied the definition of "wilful" as settled by the Supreme Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha (2003) 11 SCC 1, cited with approval in C. Elumalai v. A.G.L. Irudayaraj (2009) 4 SCC 213.

"'Wilful' means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done — that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. Even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt."

The contemnor sought to justify the sale deed as a nominal transaction, pointing to a kararnama executed by the purchasers on the same date agreeing to reconvey the property by June 10, 2026. The Court rejected this defence entirely, holding that the execution of both deeds was a conscious and deliberate act. Financial compulsion cannot justify violation of a court's order, particularly when the court had already considered and rejected a request for exactly such a relief.

Apology Rejected as Not Bona Fide

The contemnor tendered an unconditional apology at the stage of punishment. The Court rejected it, holding that the apology was not genuine contrition but a device to escape punishment.

The Court invoked the celebrated observation of the Supreme Court in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. (1984) 3 SCC 405:

"We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slapper poorer. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. For it is one thing to 'say' sorry — it is another to 'feel' sorry."

The Court further relied on All Bengal Excise Licensees' Association v. Raghabendra Singh, where the Supreme Court had observed that "it is necessary to erase an impression which appears to be gaining ground that the mantra of unconditional apology is a complete answer to violations and infractions of the orders of the High Court or of this Court."

The Court found the apology hollow and without genuine remorse, given that the disobedience was conscious, the modification application had been rejected before the alienations were made, and the apology was tendered only when punishment became imminent.

Punishment

The Court sentenced respondent No. 2 — Nagatham Mukunda Reddy — to simple imprisonment for one month in civil prison, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, action was directed under Section 421 CrPC / Section 456 of the BNSS, 2023. The Court additionally imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be remitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee. The contemnor was also held entitled to a subsistence allowance of Rs. 500/- per day during civil imprisonment, to be deposited by the contempt petitioners.

The Court allowed the contempt case in full, holding that the disobedience of a court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law. The ruling reinforces that litigants who obtain documents or seek interim reliefs from courts by giving undertakings cannot thereafter breach those very undertakings under the cover of financial hardship, and that a paper apology at the eleventh hour will not save a contemnor from punishment.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2026