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: November 2022

Jitender Yadav Vs Union of India

Posted on November 21, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Court-1 division bench of Uttarakhand High Court passed these directions regarding to handling of plastic solid waste by the producers, importers and sellers in the State.

Order Dt: 07-Jul-2022

From Paras 15-17,

15. We direct the respondent Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board to state, on affidavit, as to how many manufacturers, brand owners or importers, have registered themselves with the said Board in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules. They should also indicate the particulars of those producers, importers, and brand owners, who have not sought registration and complied with their obligation under the said Rules, and who are manufacturing plastic products/raw materials or are importing into the State, or selling their brand of goods within the State of Uttarakhand, while using non-biodegradable plastic.
16. We also direct that those producers, importers and brand owners, who do not register with the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board within the next fifteen days, shall not be permitted to either produce, or import into the State of Uttarakhand, or sell products of their brands, in the State of Uttarakhand, and the State shall ensure that all such products, which are contained in plastic sachets or pouches or packaging, are not permitted to enter the boundary of the State, or sold, in any manner whatsoever. Wide publicity shall be given to these directions by the State, so that all concerned have notice of it.
17. Since the primary responsibility for collection of used multi-layered plastic, sachets, or pouches, or packaging is of the producers, importers and brand owners, and it is their obligation to prepare their plan for collection and to submit the same to the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board while applying for consent, the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board shall also require all producers, importers and brand owners to strictly comply with this requirement. The affidavit to be filed by the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board should also indicate as to how many producers, importers and brand owners have provided the said plans, and those producers, importers and brand owners, who do not provide their plans for collection in the next 15 days, shall not be permitted to either produce, import or sell their brands, in the State of Uttarakhand, in plastic receptacles.

Jitender Yadav Vs Union of India on 07 Jul 2022

Order Dt: 19-Oct-2022

From Paras 6-9

6. Till date, the Commissioners have not filed their respective affidavits disclosing as to what steps they have taken to monitor the working of the District Magistrates in the discharge of their obligations. What we find from the various affidavits filed before us is that the various authorities, including the State Level Monitoring Committee, have been issuing paper directions to authorities subordinate to them, particularly to the Urban Local Bodies, and the District Magistrates. However, there is no monitoring of the directions being issued, let to find out whether they are being implemented.
7. We make it clear that mere issuance of such directions on paper by the higher authorities cannot be considered as discharge by them of their respective obligations, as it falls on them to ensure that their directions are complied with. It is necessary that the higher authorities monitor the implementation of the directions issued by them, by calling for actual reports, and by undertaking site visits and ground surveys. However, that does not appear to have been resorted to at all. The issues we are confronted with cannot be resolved merely by sitting in a closed office room.
8. We direct the Commissioner, Kumaun and Commissioner, Garhwal, to hit the ground with the respective District Magistrates falling within their respective jurisdiction, and to make ground surveys, town by town and village by village, to ensure that Solid Waste Management is implemented in true letter and spirit. Compliance affidavits shall be filed by the Commissioner, Kumaun and Commissioner, Garhwal before the next date, failing which they shall remain present in Court to explain their non-compliance of our directions.
9. We direct the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to create an E-mail ID, namely [email protected], which shall be open to the public at large to send their complaints regarding the solid waste, which is collected and not removed in any part of the State, be it within municipal limits, or in rural/forest areas. On the said E-mail ID, only complaints regarding solid waste, of whatever kind, would be entertained. Along with the complaint, the complainant should also upload the photographs to show the collection/ non-disposal of solid waste, clearly identifying its location. The complainant should clearly provide his/her identity and contact details. The complaints, which are received, shall be perused by the Registrar (Judicial) after 05:00 P.M. every day. These complaints shall be printed out, provided they relate to issues regarding solid waste in the State, and not otherwise. The complaints, as received, shall also be forwarded to the respective Commissioners of Kumaun and Garhwal electronically on their respective E-mail IDs, depending on whether the complaint relates to Kumaun or Garhwal region. It shall be the responsibility of the respective Commissioners to then have the complaints actioned. The Commissioners shall revert within two working days of the complaints being forwarded by the Registrar (Judicial) to inform as to what steps have been taken in respect of the complaints so received.
10. We direct the State to circulate the aforesaid Email ID in the entire State by publishing the same in daily newspapers and local Doordarshan channels, and encouraging the people to log their complaints with necessary particulars. All the District Magistrates are also directed to ensure the circulation of the said E-mail ID within their respective districts.

Jitender Yadav Vs Union of India on 19 Oct 2022
Posted in High Court of Uttarakhand Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed Jitender Yadav Vs Union of India Pollution due to Solid Plastic Waste Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 27 Sep 2021

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

The refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.
Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal court.
Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo is for a
period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal.
The passport authority is directed to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this Court. Subject to the other conditions being fulfilled, the Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 27 Sep 2021
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision No Court Permission required for Passport Renewal Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation | Leave a comment

Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Bombay HC held as follows,

From Para 3, 4 and 5,

3. Learned Counsel for the Union relies upon Notification dated 25.8.1993 and Section 6.2 (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, to conclude that the Petitioner has to obtain a permission of the Court where criminal case is pending against the Petitioner for the purpose of issuance of the Passport. It will be a case of issuance of the Passport and not renewal of the Passport.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that validity of the Passport came to an end in the year 2017. The Petitioner applied for renewal and said application is pending for more than 4 years. It is also a fact that a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner u/s 420, 465, 467 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
5. In view of the fact that petitioner is already issued a Passport earlier and the Petitioner would be seeking renewal of the Passport and the said application is pending with the Respondent, so also, considering the Order passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1342/2017 (supra) we pass the following order.

Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr No Court Permission required for Passport Renewal | Leave a comment

Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel further relied on the decision passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1954 of 2020, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 in the case of “Suresh Nanda V. CBI”, wherein the Apex Court observed that impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing. Accordingly, this court held that neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the court of law and only the Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.

3 Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Courts Can Not Impound Passport Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Return The Passport To Accused | Leave a comment

Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

From Para 18, (When Seizure turns into Impounding – 4 weeks from Seizure)

18. Having given due consideration to the submissions made as above and also taking note of the precedents on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is to be seen that retaining of passport by the police authorities after the same is seized beyond a period of four weeks would amount to impounding by the police authority, which power the said authority lacks, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda V. C.B.I. (2008) 3 SCC 674. Further, this court having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and the provisions of the Cr.P.C. including Section 457 Cr.P.C., has by its order in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in W.P. No.22956 of 2019 held that retaining the seized property by the police after being reported to the Magistrate, would have to be considered only as a custodian and such retaining cannot be considered as impounding by the police authorities and passport holder has to make an application to the concerned Court for release of the passport.

From Para 19,

However, even after commencement of functioning of Courts, if the respondent police authority has failed or fails to take steps in depositing the passport within a period of four weeks, the same would amount to impounding, which power the authorities are not conferred with.

From Para 20,

20. Further, even after the seized material is deposited into Court under seizure report, when it comes to passport seized and deposited into Court, the Court is not empowered to impound the passport under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. upon such deposit. The power to impound a validly issued passport is specifically conferred on the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, being a special enactment would prevail over Cr.P.C. a general enactment. Thus, even after deposit of seized property into the Court, the respondent authority would be required to take further steps by approaching the passport authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and seek for impounding of passport. The said situation can arise only if any one of the condition enumerated in clause (a) to (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 being attracted. At this stage, the judgement rendered by the Madras High Court in Jeyabalan case (supra) would be of aid to the case of the petitioner.

From Para 21 (Very Imp: Passport/Travel document can be cancelled by Passport Authority, even when the physical possession of passport is not there with them)

21. It is also to be seen that for impounding of passport by the passport authority on attracting any of the conditions specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, having of physical custody of passport is neither mandatory nor specified. It is only the satisfaction of the passport authority that any of the conditions stipulated in (a) to (h) of Section 10(3) is attracted, the authority can impound the same, irrespective of where the passport holder is residing at. However, before passing of impounding order, the authority is required to give opportunity of hearing to the concerned. Thus, the claim of the respondent authorities that, if passport is released to the petitioner, it will be difficult to apprehend him again, does not appeal to this Court for being accepted for the aforesaid reasons and also having regard to the wide amplitude of powers, the passport authority enjoys, unless the petitioner escapes to countries with whom India does not have Extradition Treaties or Arrangements or seeks asylum in a country so permitting. Even otherwise, the said apprehension also appears to be without any basis for the reason, the petitioner claims to be working onsite/onshore with an Indian IT company and would be on employment visa and all his details would be available with the employer as to the onsite location of working and client details and at a call of the employer, the employee can be withdrawn and deported from wherever he is.

Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020
Posted in High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Courts Can Deposit Passport Courts Can Not Impound Passport Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Police Confiscated Passport Return The Passport To Accused | Leave a comment

Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP (Release of Passport)

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

My passport was deposited at 3rd Junior Civil Judge Court, Ongole as (illegally) directed by the AP High Court while granting me (unwarranted) Anticipatory Bail. Here is the Bail Order in Crl.P No. 3886 of 2017…

2017-07-18 Bail Application ALLOWED to A1 in HC

To have this released, I was advised to file an IA in above long-disposed-in-2017 Crl.P. So I got the IA filed in Feb 2022. Then the IA case was numbered as IASR 3300/2022 but NOT listed. Because, the section staff at AP HC do not have the original bundle here at Amaravati. On this ground, the IA was kept lying. On top of this, I get to know in October 2022 that, APHC staff sent a requisition to Telangana HC in April 2022 seeking this bundle, but it has not come. Hmm..


Struggle didn’t end there. After discussions with staff from 3 sections at APHC, I decided (they advised me!) to file a new Crl.P seeking Quash of earlier Order (actually just the illegal condition to deposit my passport), ignoring the earlier filed IA. I wrote said petition and went ahead with it. Here is the Petition copy. The case number is Crl.P No. 8571 of 2022.

2022-10-20 Release my passport in 498A IPC Case v0.5

The first question raised by the bench during cause list motion hearing was, tell me the authority of this Court to quash an earlier order of this same Court, only after that I will proceed with merits, admitting that the facts indicate I suffered genuinely. Since I had no answer to that question at that time, I decided to withdraw the petition with liberty to refile.


Now, the next step I would like to take is to mention the IA before appropriate Court and pray for listing the IA, not insisting for Original case bundle… Coming Monday…

Posted in Sandeep Pamarati | Tagged Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP (Release of Passport) | Leave a comment

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Posted on November 2, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Saket Court, New Delhi passed this order.

From Para 41,

41. In light of the above discussion, the Application U/s 12 PWDV Act filed by the complainant is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be deposited by the complainant in the account of Blind Relief Association. The imposition of cost is in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoers should not get benefits out of frivolous litigations. Needless to say, all interim orders stand canceled.

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165927699/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/sumana-bhasin-vs-neeraj-bhasin-9863

One Lakh Fine on Wife For Filing Fake Domestic Violence Case

 

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Perjury - Costs Levied or Imprisonment For Perjury Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin | Leave a comment

Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022

Posted on November 2, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Similar to this Order here, same (judge!) division bench of High Court of Punjab & Haryana passed this Order too. Again, abuser gets divorce and 10 lakhs!!!

In our view, once criminal litigation is initiated between the parties it leads to a point of no return. And if it is a false case filed by the wife merely to harass and humiliate the husband and his family, then the resultant bitterness rarely leaves any room or reason for reconciliation. A perusal of the judgment at Annexure A-1 whereby the appellant and his family members have been acquitted of the charges under Section 406, 498-A 120-B IPC shows that ld. Trial Court has returned very categoric findings holding that the prosecution entirely failed to prove its case. DW-1 Baljinder Singh has stated on oath that he had participated in the marriage between the parties as mediator and nothing was demanded by the appellant or his family from the respondent or her parents. The learned SDJM, Patti in his judgment of acquittal has returned the finding that no medico-legal examination was led by the respondent wife to prove the alleged beatings that she had received at the hands of the appellant and his father.

Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Divorce granted on Cruelty ground Divorce granted on Desertion ground Divorce Granted to Husband HM Act 25 – Permanent Alimony Allowed Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur | Leave a comment

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 (1,165 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (1,154 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (1,070 views)
  • XYZ Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 05 Aug 2022 (1,006 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (815 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (806 views)
  • Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022 (532 views)
  • Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022 (434 views)
  • Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 27 Sep 2021 (434 views)
  • Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (428 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 2023-04-04 April 4, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 4, 09:00 - 13:00 UTCMar 27, 22:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SJC (San Jose) datacenter on 2023-04-04 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 […]
  • MAD (Madrid) on 2023-04-04 April 4, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 4, 07:00 - 16:00 UTCMar 24, 14:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MAD (Madrid) datacenter on 2023-04-04 between 07:00 and 16:00 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 […]
  • MAN (Manchester) on 2023-04-04 April 4, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 4, 00:30 - 06:30 UTCMar 23, 12:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MAN (Manchester) datacenter on 2023-04-04 between 00:30 and 06:30 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

  • 103.248.70.234 | SD March 26, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,292 | First: 2017-01-09 | Last: 2023-03-26
  • 220.192.228.88 | S March 26, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 19 | First: 2022-03-23 | Last: 2023-03-26
  • 110.89.41.109 | SDC March 26, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 47 | First: 2014-07-15 | Last: 2023-03-26
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 989 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel