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: August 2020

P.Surendran Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 29 March 2019

Posted on August 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court very clearly said a staff on Administration on Justice, such as Registry Staff can not exercise Judicial functions.

From Paras 9 and 10,

9. The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that character. The distinguishing factor which separates administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a decision upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice. A Constitution Bench of five judges in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut vs. Lakshmichand and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 677, formulated the following criteria to ascertain whether a decision or or an act is judicial function or not, in the following manner

(1) it is in substance a determination upon investigation of a question by the application of objective standards to facts found in the light of preexisting legal rule;
(2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties obligations affecting their civil rights; and
(3) that the investigation is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on questions of fact, and if the dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact.
                                             (emphasis added)
The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. The objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard. Moreover, the wordings of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act itself indicates
at application of judicial mind. In this context, we accept the statement of the Attorney General, that the determination in this case is a judicial function and the High Court Registry could not have rejected the numbering.

10. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench.

P.Surendran Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 29 March 2019

Citations: [2019 (2) Crimes 321], [2019 (2) JLJR 279], [2019 (2) KLJ 955], [2019 (2) PLJR 291], [2019 (2) RCR (Civil) 767], [2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 767], [2019 (6) Scale 465], [2019 All.M.R.(Cri.) 3493], [(2019) 9 SCC 154], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 507]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85097973/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ca8c17e9eff430a58956741

High Court Registry cannot Question Maintainability of Petition- Supreme Court

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Judiciary Antics Maintainability P.Surendran Vs State of Tamil Nadu Reportable Judgement | Leave a comment

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Posted on August 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court gave this landmark reportable judgment regd delay condonation under Sec 5 of Limitation Act.

13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated
benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

 

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Citations: [2012 AIR SC 1506], [2012 ALR 91 879], [2012 AWC SC 3 2651], [2012 CALLT SC 3 65], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 20], [2012 CLT 113 1066], [2012 COMPCAS SC 174 387], [2012 CTC 2 240], [2012 ELT SC 277 289], [2012 GLH 1 670], [2012 ITR SC 348 7], [2012 JLJR 2 252], [2012 JCR SC 3 59], [2012 PLJR 2 371], [2012 RLW SC 3 2142], [2012 SCALE 2 782], [2012 SCC 3 563], [2013 SLJ SC 1 320], [2012 TAXMAN SC 207 163], [2012 SCC CIV 2 327], [2012 SCC CRI 2 580], [2012 SCC L&S 1 649], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 192], [2012 GUJ LH 1 670], [2012 AIC 112 69], [2012 CALLJ 2 93], [2012 CALLT 3 65], [2012 VST 54 188], [2012 SCT 2 269], [2012 SUPREME 2 244], [2012 CLT 1 338], [2012 AIR SC 0 1812], [2012 SCR 1 1045], [2012 SLT 2 312], [2012 JT 2 483], [2012 CHN SC 3 20], [2012 CCC 2 1], [2012 AIOL 103], [2012 SCC L&S 2 649], [2012 SCJ 3 873], [2012 SCC CR 2 580], [2012 LW 4 100], [2013 CPR 2 306], [2013 CPR 3 622], [2012 CUTLT 113 1066], [2012 SCR 0 500], [2012 TAXMANNCOM SC 20 347]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20289457/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af18e4b014971141598b

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Dismissed Due to Delay In Appeals Filed Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained Limitation Act Sec 5 - Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd Reportable Judgement | Leave a comment

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M Srinivasa Rao on 28 August 2020

Posted on August 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

See Supreme Court deprecated the unethical practice of State Government of Andhra Pradesh in this Order… Hehehe

State of Andhra Pradesh does it again! The incorrigible inefficiency in filing appeal is apparent from page 78 where the present special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 455 days. In view of Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 there are no more acceptable excuses. These are matters brought before the Court only to obtain a certificate of dismissal to put a quietus to the matter. We strongly deprecate the same.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M Srinivasa Rao on 28 August 2020

The earlier judgment from erstwhile High Court of AP.

M.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of A.P. on 28 August 2018

A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 340 - Dismissed IPC 211 Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Amicable working with Advocate

Posted on August 27, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The following are my learnings while working with advocates. Some taught me Dos and some Don’ts. Take it as you like.

 

  • Start using eCourts app and learn to find more information from High Court websites, if not found on eCourts platform (app and website)
  • Discuss your priorities and expectations from the case, in clear terms. Better safe than sorry.
  • Ask/find and record/save alternate means of communicating with your Advocate. Office Address, Alternate contact numbers, Colleague in his Chambers, Email etc.,
  • Learn the Law and the court procedure involved in the instant case thoroughly. It helps pacify unwarranted fears to some extent.
  • Most petitions are available in/near Court premises and sold at retail price. No need to shell out 1000’s for these forms.
  • Ensure ALL your payments to Advocate are made digitally. This is solid evidence against unpleasant disputes
  • In Criminal Trials, Electronic Evidences in their Original devices need not be shared with advocates at the beginning itself. A set of copies will do for perusal and any drafting. There is stage later on when Evidence needs to be brought on record of Court supported by a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
  • Ask them to read (a) All Protection from Police here and (b) All Reliefs from Judiciary here. hehe
  • Above tip not working? Want to discontinue the services of current advocate? Communicate on email, phone clearly your intent and ask for NOC (No Objection Certificate). This is NOT a rule but a unwritten practice, so avoid complications between advocates due to clients. NOC is nothing but Vakalath/Vakalathnama on the sleeve/side of which Advocate writes, ‘No objection to engage another advocate’, along with Name, Signature, Enrollment number and date. Simple!

 

 

Posted in LLB Study Material | Leave a comment

AP Government’s Delegation of powers to Secretaries of respective Departments to lodge complaints

Posted on August 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

With this GO, AP Government delegated powers to Secretaries of Departments to file cases and lodge complaints through Public Prosecutor against false, baseless and defamatory news items published, Telecast, posted in Print, Electronic and Social Media.

Govt files cases on Public with Public Money.

2019-10-30 2019GAD_RT2430 Lodge complaints and legal cases through Public Prosecutor
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Delegation of powers to Secretaries of respective Departments to lodge complaints | Leave a comment

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs G Hari Govinda Prasad on 17 August 2020

Posted on August 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

State of AP went to Supreme Court in SLP against the AP High Court Order of Suspension of GOs related to doling out of Amaravati lands to people from Economically Weaker Sections here. Supreme Court dismissed it summarily.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs G Hari Govinda Prasad on 17 August 2020
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs G Hari Govinda Prasad | Leave a comment

G.Hari Govinda Prasad Vs State of AP

Posted on August 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This PIL was filed with the following prayers:

  1. 1 the action of the respondents in proposing to allot lands to an extent of Ac 1251 51 Cents in the villages of Nowluru Krishnayapalem Nidamarru Inavolu Kuragallu and Mandadam to Economically Weaker Sections of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Tadepalli Municipality Mangalagiri Municipality and selected Gram Panchayats of Tadepalli Duggirala Mangalagiri and Pedakakani Mandals under Pedalakandariki Illu program under G O Ms No 107 Municipal Administration and Urban Development CRDA 2 Department dated 25 02 2020 ii G O Ms No 367 Revenue Assignment Department dated 19 08 2019 and iii G O Ms No 488 Revenue Assignment Department dated 02 12 2019asarbitrary illegal mala fide colorable exercise of power and in violation of provisions of A P Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfer Act 1977 A P Capital Region Development Authority Act 2014 and unconstitutional and to consequentially set aside 1 G O Ms No 107 Municipal Administration and Urban Development CRDA 2 Department dated 25 02 2020 ii G O Ms No 367 Revenue Assignment Department dated 19 08 2019 and iii G O Ms No 488 Revenue Assignment Department dated 02 12 2019

On 2020-03-23:

AP High Court suspended the impugned GOs.

G.Hari Govinda Prasad Vs State of AP on 23 March 2020

As usual the bozo team goes to Supreme Court and fails face down here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Leave a comment

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi and Ors

Posted on August 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

AP High Court has issued Status Quo on the Petition by Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi here. Promptly, State of AP filed SLP at Supreme Court.

On 2020-08-17:

CJI Bobde recused himself from hearing. Not before me.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi and Ors on 17 August 2020

On 2020-08-19:

Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman recused himself from hearing. Not before me.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi and Ors on 19 August 2020

On 2020-08-26:

SLP dismissed. Om Shanti…

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi and Ors on 26 August 2020

Gazette from President of India regd Formation of High Court of Andhra Pradesh here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi and Ors | Leave a comment

Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors

Posted on August 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi filed this WP with the following prayers

  1. Writ of Mandamus a declaring that the State of Andhra Pradesh has no legislative competence change the Capital of the State or to denude Amaravati from being the war of the 3 civic wings of the State including the Legislature Executive i the Judiciary
  2. declaring that the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Repeal Act 2020 is ultra vires Articles 3 4 14 19 21 197 Parts IX and DA 300A of the Constitution of India r/w Sections 312 and 94 of the A P State Reorganisation Act 2014 and urgently declare it to be null and void
  3. declaring that the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusivement of All Regions Act 2020 is ultra vires Articles 3 4 14 19 197 174 Parts IX and IXA 300A of the Constitution of India r/w 5 312 and 94 of the A P State Reorganisation Act 2014 and consequently declare it to be null and void
  4. declaring the report of the High-Powered Committee dated 17 01 2020 as being bad in law and ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
  5. directing the Respondents to forthwith forbear from acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the report of the High-Powered Committee dated 17 01 2020
  6. directing the Respondents to forthwith forbear from shifting any of the offices of the 3 civic wings of the State including but not limited to the Raj Bhavan Chief Ministers Camp Office offices of the Secretariat Heads of Departments of the Government Police Department State Corporations State Government Offices and Officers from their current locations in and around Amaravati and from trifurcating the Capital for a period of 30 years or such time as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
  7. directing the Respondents to implement the Master Plan as notified on 23 06 2016 under Section 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act 2014 including by constructing the necessary buildings and housing the offices of the 3 civic wings of the State Government including the Executive Judiciary and Legislature in Amaravati

On 2020-08-04: High Court granted 10 days time to file Counter.

Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 04 August 2020_compressed

On 2020-08-14: Common Counter Filed by State. High Court ordered to file one paperbook from either side with Registrar Judicial via email id, [[email protected]]. Status Quo Maintained.

Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 14 August 2020_compressed

On 2020-08-27:

Status Quo Maintained. Adjourned to Sep 21st 2020


On 2020-09-21:

More time is given to file Counter-affidavits.

Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 21 Sep 2020_compressed

On 2020-10-06:

Multiple IAs are various subjects

  • Status Quo continues on the operation of the dumbo laws (to repeal CRDA Act and to Decentralize Development Act).
  • Counter to be filed by AG against the IAs seeking prohibition of spending of State Exchequer for purpose of creating infrastructure for CM at Visakhapatnam, ignoring the ones at Amaravati.
  • Files preceding the setup of two committees 1) Boston Consulting Group 2) High Powered Committee; Files pertaining to the two dumbo Bills. Court ordered for those files to be placed before Court
  • Issue a bulletin of AP Council notifying the 8 member Select Council to work on dumbo Bills. Also the video footage of Council for Court perusal dt 16 and 17 June 2020. Also provide Bluebooks of the dumbo Bills and the register will Bills details. Registers with Legislative called as Legislative Standing Order during 16 and 7 June 2020. And official verbatim  proceedings
  • Seeking Master plan notified under section 39 of CRDA Act
  • appointment of advocate commissioner to find out the reality of construction of permanent buildings in Amaravati
  • Suspension of operation of reports of the two committees
  • Accountant General and Principal Accountant General are impleaded – Allowed; advocate also identified and reflected in cause list.
Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 06 Oct 2020_compressed

On 2020-11-02:

Since Government agreed not to shift the Corporation offices which were already situated outside Amaravati region, the two IAs were closed as no need for adjudication arises.

Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 02 Nov 2020

 

 


The bozo team went to Supreme Court here. Another set of Reddys team filed another SLP at SC and get facepalm here.

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

In Re Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents

Posted on August 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Suo Moto Criminal Writ Petition, Supreme Court took up the cause upon itself and issue directions, one of which is constitution of Special Court to prosecute cases under POCSO Act.

In Re Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents on 25 July 2019

Action taken by Andhra Pradesh Government:

2019-09-26 2019HO_MS121 Sanction of Eight (8) more Special Courts in the Cadre of District Judge under the POCSO Act 2012

2020-08-25 2020HO_MS93 Sanction of Eight (8) more Special Courts in the Cadre of District Judge under the POCSO Act 2012

The Recent Order is from March… after which no update (Not brought before a bench even though the Order clearly says so.

In Re Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents on 06 March 2020
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged In Re Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents Suo Moto Proceedings by Supreme Court Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 19 Jan 2021 January 23, 2021
  • AP State Election Commission Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh January 21, 2021
  • Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs AP State Election Commission on 11 Jan 2021 January 21, 2021
  • Change the Advocate January 21, 2021
  • Decisions of High Courts to be made applicable in Other High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India January 21, 2021

Most Read Posts

  • All Reliefs from Judiciary (821 views)
  • Hindu Personal Code Laws (597 views)
  • Future Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India (572 views)
  • Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 06 August 2020 (547 views)
  • All Protection from Police High-handedness (487 views)
  • Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) in Court Judgments (486 views)
  • Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (413 views)
  • State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018 (409 views)
  • Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India on 18 August 2020 (373 views)
  • All Bail Judgments (319 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained (216)Landmark Case (210)Work-In-Progress Article (187)Reportable Judgement (164)Catena of Landmark Judgments (120)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (81)Article 21 of The Constitution of India (61)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (46)Summary Post (46)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (43)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (43)3-Judge Bench Decision (37)1-Judge Bench Decision (36)IPC 498a Not Made Out (32)CrPC 482 - Quash (32)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)PIL - CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book (28)LLB Subjects and Previous Year Exam Papers and Answers (27)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (491)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (249)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (131)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (82)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (75)General Study Material (53)Prakasam DV Cases (46)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (44)LLB Study Material (44)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (40)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (35)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (34)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (32)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (21)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (13)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (11)Chittor DV Cases (11)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • January 2021 (42)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (42)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (36)
  • 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 (74)
  • 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

  • Cloudflare Logs Delays January 23, 2021
    Jan 23, 03:29 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 22, 20:06 UTCMonitoring - Cloudflare has implemented a fix for this issue and is currently monitoring the results. We will update the status once the issue is resolved.Jan 22, 20:06 UTCIdentified - Cloudflare has identified the issue and is implementing a fix. We will update […]
  • DNS Service Issues January 22, 2021
    Jan 22, 05:00 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 22, 04:50 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jan 22, 03:43 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jan 22, 03:26 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is aware of an issue with the performance of DNS […]
  • Cloudflare Billing Issues January 20, 2021
    Jan 20, 13:11 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 20, 13:01 UTCUpdate - Cloudflare has resolved the issue affecting the ordering platform. At this time transactions should be processing normally for existing customers and new customer signups.Jan 20, 12:59 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jan 20, 12:50 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 87.202.21.152 | SC January 22, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 23 | First: 2008-09-08 | Last: 2021-01-13
  • 36.67.51.186 | SDC January 22, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 108 | First: 2018-10-21 | Last: 2021-01-15
  • 180.121.135.91 | SC January 22, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 13 | First: 2017-09-22 | Last: 2021-01-14
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC
pixel