web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: July 2020

Krishna Kumar (Minor) Vs State of Haryana on 24 July 2020

Posted on July 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Madaan held that, the JJ Act did not prohibit the provision/protection of anticipatory bail available u/s 438 CrPC so it cannot be said that such relief is not available to the petitioner. So he granted anticipatory bail to the accused.

Krishna Kumari (Minor) Vs State of Haryana on 24 July 2020 Interim Order
Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Granted Krishna Kumar (Minor) Vs State of Haryana Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes | Leave a comment

Satpal Singh Vs State of Punjab on 15 July 2020

Posted on July 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Sensible Judge understood the nefarious arrangement between two parties to marriage, more as a contract to immigrate to Canada. AB granted.

Satpal Singh Vs State of Punjab on 15 July 2020
Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Granted Legal Terrorism Satpal Singh Vs State of Punjab | Leave a comment

Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July 2020

Posted on July 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

WP(PIL) 174/2019

 

 

23 July 2020

High Court dismissed the PIL finding no Public Interest but sufficient Political Interest here and here. Media favourable to YSRCP finds HC favouring TDP here. In case the original article is removed from site, here is a true copy saved from the site. This serves as Secondary evidence as per Evidence Act.

HC Favours TDP

 

17 December 2019

HC Orders probe here.

 

6 December 2019

Nara Chandra Babu inaugurates the Party Headquarters here and here.

MLA files PIL here.

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020

Posted on July 22, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In a short direction given to SEC Sri N.Ramesh Kumar, High Court said as follows:

In the meantime, petitioner is at liberty to take recourse as specified under Article 243K(3) of the Constitution of India, making a request to Hon’ble the Governor for implementation of the directions of this Court in terms of the Order dated 29-05-2020 in W.P. No. 8163 of 2020.

N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020

On this Direction from High Court, N Ramesh Kumar approached Hon’ble the Governor’s office seeking direction to State Government.


Hon’ble Governor’s Office was pleased to do the needful.

Secretary to Governor Letter to N Ramesh Kumar

Now the Entire Andhra Pradesh State is awaiting when the State Government will do suicide by not following Supreme Court direction which  directly assists in invocation of Article 356 of Constitution of India, which will therefore dismiss the State Government and promulgate President’s Rule in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Will this lead only to Suicide of State Government or something/someone else is also to be seen as time rolls on.


The earlier AP High Court Order is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CC Act Sec 12 - Contempt In Face Of Court N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors | Leave a comment

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the one of the shortest decisions from Supreme Court

From Para 2,

2. By the impugned order, the Special Court has discharged the accused Raghunath Lekhraj Wadhwa, Jitendra Ratilal Shroff and Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff from Special Case No. 4 of 1997. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the Special Court has virtually passed an order of acquittal in the garb of an order of discharge. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, what is required to be seen is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In our view, the Special Court was not justified in discharging the aforesaid accused persons.

Casemine version:

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005 CM Ver

Supreme Court version (Record of {Proceedings):

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005

Citations: [2009 SCC 16 429], [2010 SCC CRI 3 315]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117eb32713e179478af2d0#

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors CrPC 227 - Discharge Rejected CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejected Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes | Leave a comment

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that, “Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry”

From Para 6,

Dowry in the sense of that expression contemplated by Act 28 of 1961 is a demand for property or valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage. In other words it is a consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. Where the demand for property or valuable security has no connection with the consideration for the marriage, it will not amount to a demand for dowry. In the instant case, the evidence has to be properly understood and thus viewed it is clear that what the appellants wanted was valuable presents to be made to appellant Mahadeo on the occasion of festivals like Deepavali. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the presents are customarily given to sons-in-law on festive occasions and giving of such presents is in no way connected with the wedding or marriage. It is a post-marriage expectation and the expectation and performance thereof once restricted to the affluents and the middle class, has now spread its tentacles to the poor also. The expectation is because of the relationship, but without any nexus to the agreement to marry. Therefore, it does not amount to dowry. Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry. This is clear from the qualifying clause of section 2 in Act 28 of 1961 reproduced above.

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Citations: [1993 (3) BomCR 473]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/553393/

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Not Proved DP Act 4 – Money Demand Not In Connection Of Marriage Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that, Irrespective of when a demand was made, either during/before marriage or subsequent to marriage, section 4 offence is made out.

From Para 7,

Having regard to the dominant object of the Act which is to stamp out the practice of demanding dowry in any shape or form either before or after the marriage. The entire definition of the word ‘dowry’ should not be imported into Section 4 and a liberal construction has to be given to the word ‘dowry’ used in Section 4 to mean that any property or valuable security which if consented to be given on the demand being made would become dowry within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. The object of Section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for ‘giving’ property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Act. There is no warrant for taking the view that the initial demand for giving of property or valuable security would not constitute an offence and that an offence would take place only when the demand was made again after the party on whom the demand was made agreed to comply with it.

Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001

Citations: [2001 CriLJ 2792]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/737573/

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A key element necessary to go for Discharge petition is the following:

That prosecution should refer to existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials. If this is missing, you have good chance of winning your Discharge Petition.

With reference to the absence of allegations under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, it is submitted whether the charge sheet has reference to any particular material referred to in it and the relevance of it is to be considered at the time when the charge is framed. It would not be desirable to analyse minutely the materials as at that stage the Court is primarily concerned with the question as to whether charge is to be framed in respect of any offence and whether there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials. Therefore, the appellants’ stand that the charge sheet does not refer to any particular material cannot be accepted, more particularly, in view of the specific materials referred to by learned counsel for the respondent-State.

Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006

Citations: [2007 JT 1 89], [2006 CRIMES SC 4 388], [2007 AIR SC 1276], [2007 AIR SC 1415], [2007 SCC CRI 1 193], [2007 SCC 1 1], [2006 SCR SUPP 10 197], [2006 SUPREME 8 964], [2006 SCALE 13 54], [2007 AIR SC 1274], [2007 AIC SC 51 623]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1634320/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae36e4b014971141330e


Index of Discharge/Quash case laws here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 197 - Prosecution of Judges and public servants Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors | Leave a comment

Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of AP has held in this Anticipatory Bail application, to be a falsely implicated case against petitioners. Certain guidelines were passed.

It is most unfortunate that the de facto complainant has implicated her in laws, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, parents of the mother-in-law and their relatives, two more sisters of her husband and their husbands who are residing in foreign countries. A reading of the complaint gives an impression that the de facto complainant has implicated almost all the relatives of her husband and their other close relatives who are visiting her husbands house. This is most unfortunate situation. This type of complaint gives an impression that Section 498-A is being misused to harass not only the husband of the de facto complainant but all his relatives. It is alleged that in order to force the husband to come to their terms or in order to meet their huge demands, this kind of complaints are being given. How difficult it would be for those persons staying in Australia, Jeddah or USA to come over to India and face the criminal case and prove their innocence.

Truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided unless fair and dispassionate investigation is completed. Sometimes, after full-fledged trial only, truth may come out. There cannot be any doubt to say that there is dowry menace in the society. But, at the same time, it is also a fact that certain marriages are performed without any dowry. Due to ill-advice or under a wrong impression that if a complaint is lodged under section 498-A IPC, the husband may come to terms, complaints are being lodged with the police. When differences arise, there should be proper counselling before and after marriage. It is quite natural that husband and wife would have faced different circumstances and environment from their childhood resulting in gaining different impressions and opinions and therefore they may have difference of opinion on life style and on several other issues. Therefore, issues have to be resolved by trying to understand one another, particularly, when the parties have children, special care has to be taken to protect the interest of the children. The welfare of the children should be given utmost importance. Therefore, proper counselling at initial stage would help the parties. It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.

Here are the guidelines.

It appears that there is every need to give similar directions in Andhra Pradesh. Under Domestic Violence Act, protection officer is required to assist the police and the Court. Section 14 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 envisages that the Magistrate may, at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondents or the aggrieved person either singly or jointly to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who posses such qualification and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-compoundable offence.
In the light of the above discussion, the following guidelines have been issued.
a) A fair and dispassionate investigation should be conducted. After completing investigation, the same should be verified by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
b) During the course of investigation, if the investigating officer is satisfied that there is false implication of any person in the complaint then he may delete the names of such persons from the charge sheet after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police or any other officer equivalent to that rank.
c) As soon as a complaint is received either from the wife alleging dowry harassment or from the husband that there is every likelihood of him being implicated in a case of dowry harassment, then, both the parties should be asked to undergo counselling with any experienced counsellor or counsellors. The report of such counsellors should be made as a part of the report to be submitted by the investigating officer to the Court.
d) The Superintendent of Police, in consultation with the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, may prepare a panel of counsellors and such panel of counsellors along with their address and phone numbers should be made available at all the police stations.
e) Normally, no accused should be arrested, where the allegation is simple dowry harassment. If the arrest is necessary during the course of investigation, the investigating officer should obtain permission of the Superintendent of Police or any other officer of the equal rank in metropolitan cities. If arrest is not necessary, the police may complete the investigation and lay charge sheet before the Court without arresting the accused and seek necessary orders from the Court. However, in the case of dowry death, suspicious death, suicide or where the allegations are serious in nature such as inflicting of bodily injury etc., the police officer may arrest the accused. However, the intimation of such arrest should be immediately sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police who may give necessary guidance to the arresting officer.
f) No accused or witness should be unnecessarily called to the police station and as soon as the purpose of summoning them to the police station is over they should be sent back. There should not be any unnecessary harassment to any person i.e. either to the relatives of the de facto complainant or to the relatives of the husband.
g) The higher police officers should see that the parties do not make any allegations that they are forced to come to any settlement in police stations against their wish. However, this does not mean that the police officers should not make any effort for amicable settlement.
h) The advocates have to play their role in trying to unite the families. They must act as social reformers while dealing with these kind of cases, particularly, where the couple have children. Even when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, they should examine the matter judiciously and consider whether there are valid grounds for remanding the accused to the judicial custody. No accused should be remanded to judicial custody mechanically in routine manner. If the Magistrate feels that the accused cannot be released after taking bonds, necessary orders may be passed accordingly.

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, is requested to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned in this regard.

 

Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014

Citations: [

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/

It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.


This is followed in AP High Court judgment here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors Legal Terrorism Preeti Gupta and Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand and Anr Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP | Leave a comment

Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This can be considered as a sitemap of all Summary pages on my Site.

Delivery of Justice

  • All Bare Acts of India here.
  • All Compulsory Registration of Marriage in India – Both Acts and Rules here.
  • All Dowry related case laws here.
  • All 498A IPC Judgments here.
  • All 494 and 495 IPC Judgments here.
  • All Matters related to Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) here.
  • All Bail Matters here.
  • All Look Out Circular Decisions here.
  • All Compensation Judgments for Motor Vehicle Accidents or other mishaps here.
  • All Defamation Judgments here.
  • All Domestic Violence Judgments here.
  • All Divorce Judgments here.
  • All Maintenance Judgments here.
  • All Acquittal from Criminal Matrimonial Cases here.
  • All Perjury Judgments here.
  • All Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. here.
  • All Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C. here.
  • All Quash Judgment u/s 482 Cr.P.C. here.
  • All Amicable ways of working with Advocates here.
  • All Life Cycles of various cases here.
  • All Passport Judgments here.

 

 

Administration of Justice:

  • All Protection from Police High-handedness here.
  • All Reliefs from Judiciary here.
  • All Video Conferencing Guidelines of Courts in India here.
  • Usage of A4 sheets with Double-Sided Printing for all purposed in Court here.
  • eCourts Project
  • AI-based Legalbots
  • Staff on Administration of Justice, such as Registry Staff can not exercise Judicial functions such as deciding/dismissing applications/petitions based on their maintainability. See here.

 

Personal Interest

  • All Legal Goals to Achieve under Judicial Activism (Via Public Interest Litigation) here.
  • All false cases laid on me [Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife] here.

 

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Pravasi Legal Cell Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Mar 2023 March 28, 2023
  • Bijumon and Ors Vs The New India Assurance Co on 28 Feb 2023 March 9, 2023
  • Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 04 Aug 2022 March 8, 2023
  • Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 05 Jan 2021 March 8, 2023
  • Premchand Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2023 March 8, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (1,189 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (1,100 views)
  • XYZ Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 05 Aug 2022 (1,098 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (843 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (820 views)
  • Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022 (556 views)
  • Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 27 Sep 2021 (464 views)
  • Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022 (436 views)
  • Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (430 views)
  • Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013 (416 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (333)Reportable Judgement or Order (329)Landmark Case (319)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (268)Work-In-Progress Article (218)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (217)1-Judge Bench Decision (151)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (83)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (75)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (54)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (35)Advocate Antics (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (640)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (299)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (160)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (108)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (91)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (54)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (41)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (40)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (31)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • G Reddeppa on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • Vincent on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • SJC (San Jose) on 2023-04-07 April 7, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 7, 09:00 - 13:00 UTCMar 30, 18:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SJC (San Jose) datacenter on 2023-04-07 between 09:00 and 13:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • SJC (San Jose) on 2023-04-06 April 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 6, 09:00 - 13:00 UTCMar 30, 18:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SJC (San Jose) datacenter on 2023-04-06 between 09:00 and 13:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • IAH (Houston) on 2023-04-06 April 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 6, 07:00 - 13:00 UTCMar 28, 12:41 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in IAH (Houston) datacenter on 2023-04-06 between 07:00 and 13:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 27.123.237.147 | S March 30, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 18 | First: 2010-12-23 | Last: 2023-03-30
  • 27.123.237.138 | S March 30, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 19 | First: 2010-12-04 | Last: 2023-03-30
  • 27.123.237.242 | S March 30, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 17 | First: 2010-12-28 | Last: 2023-03-30
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1216 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel