Where the misconduct complained of falls under Contempt of Courts Act as well as Penal Code, independent of each other, the accused can be punished for contempt even if he has once bee punished under s. 228 of the Penal Code for the act committed by him, and the principle of double jeopardy is in applicable in the case.—Court on its own motion v. Milkhi Ram 1992 Cr LJ 2130

The corporate veil is being blatantly used as a clock is willfully disobey the orders of the court. Lifting the corporate veil is imperative to punish improper conduct. It is the requirement of public interest that the corporate veil must be lifted to find out the person who disobeyed the order of the court.—yoti Ltd. V. K.K. Bhasin 1987 Cr LJ 1281

Power to punish the contemner for itself which is inherent in the court of reward includes power to dismiss the case for contempt. When it has power to dismiss on merit it has the power to dismiss for default. Equally as an adjunct or incidental thereto, it has also inherent power to restore the application dismissed for default.—D. V.K. Kesva Raju v. S.R. Govinda 1990 Cr LJ 299

Where the misconduct complained of falls under Contempt of Courts Act as well as Penal Code, independent of each other, the accused can be punished for contempt even if he has once bee punished under s. 228 of the Penal Code for the act committed by him, and the principle of double jeopardy is in applicable in the case.—Court on its own motion v. Milkhi Ram 1992 Cr LJ 2130