Anyone who makes or attempts to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making a false statement on oath in courts aim at striking a blow at the rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at steak.—Dhanjay Sharma v. State or Haryana 1995 (3) SCC 757

Contempt is essentially a matter for the court concerned. Such a jurisdiction is vested in the court in order that the majesty of law can be upheld. If any interference is made or sought to be made in the course of justice, the court must take serious view of the same.—Rakesh Kaul v. Registrar, High Court of J&K 1994 (5) SCC 759

The fact that the order appointing the receiver is improperly procured is no justification for interfering with him since the validity can be challenged by application to the court.—In re Mukunda Chandra Halder 1994 CrLJ (NOC) 189

Making wild allegations of corruption against the presiding officer amounts to scandalizing the court. Imputation of motives of corruption to the judicial officer/authority by any person or group of persons is a serious inroad into the efficacy of judicial process and threat to judicial independence and needs to be dealt with the strong arm of law.—U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association 1995 (5) SCC 716

If freedom of expression sub serves public interest cannot gag it or manacle it; but if the court considered the attack on the Judge or judges successions, offensive, intimidatory or malicious, beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.—C. Ranichandran lyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattchargee 1995 (5) SCC 457

Liberty of free expression is not to be conferred with a licence to make unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the judges or the courts in relation to judicial matters.—In re Roshan Lal Ahuja 1993 Supp 446

No court including the court of contempt is entitled go take frivolities and trivialities into account while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceeding is taken.-S. Mukhopadhay v. T.D. Karam Chandani 1995 (75) ELT 39

Unless it is shown that the order of the court about which non compliance is complained is without jurisdiction or void ab initio the parties to the order are bound to comply with it even though it may be illegal.—S.M. Kawale v. State of Maharashtra 1994 CrLJ 735

Where a case of willful disobedience is made out the court will not hesitate and will convict the delinquent officer and so lenience in the attitude of the court should be expected from the court as a matter of cause merely on the ground that an order of conviction would damage the service career of the concerned officer.—Tapan Kumar Mukherjee v. Heromani Mondal AIR 1991 SC 281

Where there is willful breach of undertaking the court has not only the power but in appropriate cases, the duty to enforce obedience to the terms of the undertaking given to it.—Kanta Gupta v. VIII Additional District Judge Supp 1 SCC 219