Bombay High Court Grants Swiss Army Knife Maker Victorinox Relief Against Unauthorized Amazon Listings

Facts of the Case

P. Vikash Kumar, the landlord, kicked off rent control proceedings back in 2015, aiming to boot out his tenant, A. Mohandass—a lawyer practicing at the Madras High Court, no less. Mohandass, in his counter, kind of admitted he was renting all three floors. Still, the guy just wouldn’t budge.

He kept filing all these random applications, probably hoping to drag things out forever. Classic move. Anyway, after what felt like an endless legal battle, the High Court finally called time—eviction confirmed. They even went all-in with Article 227, telling him to pack up and leave within two months.

Mohandass tried to take it upstairs to the Supreme Court (because, why not?), but nope, they shot down his petitions. The only win he got? The Supreme Court tossed him a bone, pushing the deadline to vacate out to May 31, 2025, as long as he promises (in court, mind you) to actually go. Honestly, what a saga.

Background of Contempt Proceedings

So, basically, this guy Mohandass just didn’t bother to file the paperwork when he was supposed to—and, surprise, he didn’t leave the place like the court told him to. The High Court wasn’t having it, so they kicked off contempt proceedings under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Why? Because he straight-up ignored their order from November 8, 2024, and even blew off the Supreme Court’s order from January 6, 2025. There were several hearings (because, yeah, nothing’s ever simple), and it turned out Mohandass only half-moved out.

He left some parts, hung onto others, and even got in the bailiff’s way when they tried to do an inventory. Oh, and all this after he promised he wouldn’t set foot in the property again. Classic.

For More Updates & Regular Notes, Join Our WhatsApp Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group (https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators): contact@legalmaestros.com.

Legal Provisions Invoked

So, here’s the deal: the court basically whipped out Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—you know, the bit that says if you break a promise you made to the court, you’re in trouble for civil contempt.

They also leaned on Article 227 from the Constitution to push through eviction and execution stuff. Supreme Court? Yeah, they weren’t having it—didn’t want to step in, slapped on some conditions, and that just made the whole “promise to the court” thing even more binding.

Then the High Court got all serious and told the cops and bailiffs to go make sure everything actually happened, just to hammer home that, hey, contempt proceedings can get pretty heavy if you mess around.

Fundamental Issues Addressed

So, here’s the deal: This whole mess was basically about a lawyer who kept playing games with court procedures just to drag out an eviction. Not only that, but he also broke promises he’d made directly to the judge—like, legit court undertakings, not just casual “I swear I’ll do it” stuff.

The court had to figure out if his nonsense was enough to slap him with contempt charges. Honestly, the case really poked at how seriously the legal system takes these kinds of promises (spoiler: very seriously), how much patience judges actually have for stall tactics (not a lot), and reminded everyone that lawyers can’t just run wild and ignore court orders or keep filing annoying lawsuits just to buy time.

Observations and Findings of the Court

Wow, the court was seriously unimpressed with Mohandass—like, rolling-their-eyes unimpressed. This wasn’t his first rodeo either; apparently, he’s got a nice track record of dragging things out and throwing his weight around in earlier cases.

Even after swearing up and down that he’d behave, the guy basically waltzed right back onto the property on the very day he wasn’t supposed to and, cherry on top, started more lawsuits just to mess things up.

If that’s not bad faith, I don’t know what is. And honestly, the so-called apology? Please. The Supreme Court’s already weighed in on this stuff, too—break your promise to the court, and you’re basically committing fraud in broad daylight. Yeah, punishments are coming your way, no question.

Implications and Conclusion

Look, when you promise something to a court—especially if you’re a lawyer—you better mean it, not just in words, but for real. None of that sneaky loophole nonsense or dragging your feet. The judges? Yeah, they’ve got the muscle under Article 227 and the Contempt Act to crack down hard if you try to weasel out.

This ruling’s basically a big red flag: even lawyers can’t play games or act above the rules. Try it, and you’re asking for a contempt charge. End of story. They’re not just doing this for the drama, either—it’s all about keeping the whole justice system legit and making sure people still trust it.