Sold Property During Pending Appeal, Defied Court Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sends Man To Jail For Contempt

"Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty, nor a universal panacea — saying sorry does not make the slapper poorer", A litigant who brazenly mortgaged and then sold suit property in direct defiance of a High Court interim order — and then sought refuge in a hollow apology when caught — has been sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that deliberate flouting of court orders strikes at the very root of the rule of law and cannot be washed away by a cringing "sorry."

A Division Bench of Hon'ble Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon'ble Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, while holding Respondent No. 2 Nagatham Mukunda Reddy guilty of wilful disobedience under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sent an unambiguous message: when a party consciously violates a court's order after having already been refused permission to do so, no financial compulsion, no kararnama for reconveyance, and no last-minute apology can save him from punishment.

Background of the Case

The contempt arose from a partition suit — O.S. No. 139 of 2009 — filed before the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in which the contempt petitioners were decreed a one-fourth share in the suit schedule property. Nagatham Mukunda Reddy, aggrieved by the decree, filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court as A.S. No. 1280 of 2017. During the pendency of this appeal, he applied for release of original documents marked as Exhibits B2 to B7 in the trial court proceedings.

The High Court, by its order dated 16.07.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2021, allowed release of the documents subject to strict conditions — crucially, that the appellant shall not create any third-party rights over the suit schedule properties, and shall not pledge or mortgage the original documents in any manner for any purpose.

When Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed I.A. No. 2 of 2021 seeking modification of the very same order to permit him to pledge the property with a nationalised bank, citing financial hardship, the Court rejected that application too, by order dated 04.08.2022.

Despite both orders, Respondent No. 2 first executed a mortgage deed (Document No. 4299 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023) in favour of Tirupati Co-operative Bank Limited, and then sold the suit property outright under a registered sale deed (Document No. 25358 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024) to third parties — all while the appeal remained pending before the High Court.

Legal Issue

Whether the execution of a mortgage deed and a registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property, in clear violation of an express interim order restraining creation of third-party rights, constituted wilful disobedience punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — and whether the defence of financial compulsion and an alleged kararnama for reconveyance could negate the element of wilfulness.

Court's Observations and Judgment

The Defence of Financial Compulsion and Kararnama — Rejected as Afterthought

Respondent No. 2 attempted to justify the transactions on grounds of personal and financial compulsion. His counsel argued that the sale deed was merely a "nominal transaction" — that on the very same date as the sale, the purchasers had executed a kararnama agreeing to reconvey the property after repayment of the loan amount with interest by 10.06.2026. It was urged that since reconveyance was assured, there was no real alienation and thus no violation of the court's order.

The Court was unimpressed. It noted that the application for modification of the interim order to permit pledge had already been considered and expressly rejected in 2022 on the same ground of financial hardship. Despite knowing this, Respondent No. 2 proceeded to not only mortgage but actually sell the property. The Court held that the execution of both deeds was a conscious and deliberate act, and the kararnama defence was nothing but an afterthought. "There could not be any circumstance or justification to violate the Court's Order," the Bench declared.

Meaning of 'Wilful Disobedience' — Even Negligence Can Suffice

The Court drew upon the Supreme Court's authoritative exposition in C. Elumalai v. A.G.L. Irudayaraj, which in turn referred to Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, to explain that "'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."

The Court further noted that even negligence and carelessness can amount to contempt — the standard is not limited to malicious intent alone. The act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. On the facts before it, the Court had no hesitation in concluding that the disobedience was deliberate and intentional, and that the charges stood proved.

The Apology — Not Bona Fide, Rejected in Strong Terms

When faced with imminent punishment, Respondent No. 2 tendered an apology. The Court rejected it with firm language drawn from a long line of Supreme Court precedents.

Relying on C. Elumalai, the Court held that an apology is an act of contrition — it must be offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace. "If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward."

The Court quoted with approval the celebrated observation from L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court had refused to subscribe to the "slap-say sorry-and forget school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence," observing that "apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen."

The Court also referred to All Bengal Excise Licensees' Association v. Raghabendra Singh, where the Supreme Court had sounded a warning against the growing impression that "the mantra of unconditional apology is a complete answer to violations and infractions of the orders of the High Court." Finding the apology in the present case to be neither prompt nor genuine, but motivated purely by a desire to escape punishment, the Court rejected it outright.

Punishment — Rule of Law Must Be Upheld

The Court acknowledged the contention drawn from Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda that the power to punish for contempt, though wide and constitutionally entrenched, must be exercised not by vengeance but to uphold the rule of law and restore public confidence. The Court accepted the principle but held that in the present facts, punishment was necessary to serve precisely those ends.

Referring to Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that "disobedience of Court's order strikes at the very root of rule of law on which our system of governance is based." It also invoked Lord Diplock's celebrated passage in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. — that administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any Court of law could be disregarded with impunity.

Respondent No. 2 was accordingly sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- were imposed, to be remitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee. The contempt petitioners were directed to deposit subsistence allowance at Rs. 500/- per day for the period of detention. In case of non-payment of fine, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to take action under Section 421 CrPC / Section 456 BNSS. In case costs were not deposited, the order was to be executed as a decree of court.

Date of Decision: 17.03.2026