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

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020

Posted on October 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court held that issuance of new passport may be barred in sec 6 of Passports Act 1967, but not renewal.

11. A reading of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act indicates that, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if a criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant in India . However, the said provision does not provide for refusing to issue a passport for a person who intends to travel back to India . Hence, reading of this provision clearly indicates that it is applicable only for issuing a fresh passport and not for renewal of passport and this view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ashok Khanna –vs- Central Bureau of Investigation (supra). Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 has held that the Passport Authority can refuse to issue passport or an endorsement for visiting any country but nowhere in the provision it is mentioned that even for renewal of passport, the Authority can refuse to renew the passport.

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors Passports Act Sec 6(2)(f) - Refusal of passports and travel documents etc Right to Travel | Leave a comment

Satri Anitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Posted on October 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a while-color crime from Kadapa, AP from 2017, wherein the accused went to Supreme Court for Anticipatory bail.

Satri Anitha Vs State of AP on 28 Sep 2020

Here is the AB dismissal order from AP High Court:

Satri Anitha Vs State of AP on 06 Aug 2020

Some news about these people:

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/vijayawada/2017/jul/11/couple-held-for-duping-people-with-easy-loans-1626616.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/man-woman-aide-held-for-gypping-loan-seekers/articleshow/59518402.cms

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC Sec 438 - Anticipatory Bail Satri Anitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

CrPC 437 – When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence

Posted on October 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of session, he may be released on bail, but—
(i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;
(ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of 3[a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years:
Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm:
Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason:
Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court:
Provided also that no person shall, if the offence alleged to have been committed by him is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more, be released on bail by the Court under this sub-section without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor.
(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 446A and pending such inquiry, be released on bail], or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abatement of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall impose the conditions,—
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter,
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence, and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.
(4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), shall record in writing his or its reasons or special reasons for so doing.
(5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody.
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.
(7) If, at any time, after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 437 - When bail may be taken in case of Non-Bailable Offence | Leave a comment

Saravanan Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police on 15 Oct 2020

Posted on October 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court answered this short question in this reportable case of a regular/default bail issue where Trial court and High Court imposed Rs.8,00,000/- as a deposit.

whether while releasing the appellant-accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., any condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court, could have been imposed?

From Para 9,

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the scheme and the object and purpose of default bail/statutory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of  Rs.8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/.

Saravanan Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police on 15 Oct 2020
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision CrPC 167 - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours CrPC 437 - When bail may be taken in case of Non-Bailable Offence Reportable Judgement or Order Saravanan Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police | Leave a comment

Time-bound disposal provisions in Various Enactments

Posted on October 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A collection of provision which lay down time-limits for certain proceedings to finish

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005

  • Section 12(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.
    • File a memo/Make a oral submission along with Counter/Written Statement that, you (respondents) believe that this is a false litigation hoisted with vengeance and in the interest of your reputation, you are wantonly willing to help Court dispose of the matter within the statutory time limit of 60 (working days), as prescribed in above section.
  • Section 29. Appeal.—There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.
    • If you suffer interim or final orders, immediately appeal (facts in issue) or revision (law in issue, meaning baseless/illegal judgment)
  • A PIL is being contemplated here. Serial No. 4

Limitation Act 1963

The entire Act is a driving force in setting time-limits to various types of proceedings maintainable at various Courts in India. Check out the Schedule-1.


 

 

 

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged Time-bound disposal provisions in Various Enactments | Leave a comment

Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020

Posted on October 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has overruled SR Batra landmark case law here on the aspect of ‘Shared Household‘ and held as following:

From Para 64,

64. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) held that wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The definition of shared household as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate that a shared household shall be one which belongs to or taken on rent by the husband. We have noticed the definition of “respondent” under the Act. The respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household. We are of the view that this court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) although noticed the definition of shared household as given in Section 2(s) but did not advert to different parts of the definition which makes it clear that for a shared household there is no such requirement that the house may be owned singly or jointly by the husband or taken on rent by the husband. The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) that definition of shared household in Section 2(s) is not very happily worded and it has to be interpreted, which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in the society also does not commend us. The definition of shared household is clear and exhaustive definition as observed by us. The object and purpose of the Act was to grant a right to aggrieved person, a woman of residence in shared household. The interpretation which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) if accepted shall clearly frustrate the object and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the opinion that the interpretation of definition of shared household as put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law.

And from para 106,

106. The right is to be implemented by an order under Section 19, on an application filed under sub-section (1) of Section 12. Sub-section (2) of Section 17, however, contains an exception in the right granted by sub-section (2), i.e., “save in accordance with the procedure established by law”. Sub-section (2) of Section 17, thus, contemplates that aggrieved person can be evicted or excluded from the shared household in accordance with the procedure established by law. What is the meaning and extent of expression “save in accordance with the procedure established by law” is a question which has come up for consideration in this appeal. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendant in the Civil Court is covered by the expression “save in accordance with the procedure established by law”. We may further notice that the learned Magistrate while passing the interim order on 26.11.2016 in favour of the defendant on her application filed under Section 12 has directed that “the respondent shall not alienate the alleged shared household nor would they dispossess the complainant or their children from the same without orders of a Competent Court”. The Magistrate, thus, has provided that without the orders of Competent Court the applicant (respondent herein) should not be dispossessed. In the present case, interim order specifically contemplates that it is only by the order of the Competent Court respondent shall be dispossessed.

Note: Even though this may seem Topsy-turvy case law (Since it held SR Batra not correct law), not much is lost. Just arrange for alternate accommodation and make use of reliefs made available at reliefs from judiciary page and get the case closed in 2-3 months.

Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020

Citations : [2020 AIR SC 5397], [2020 SCALE 11 576], [2021 SCC CIV 1 325], [2020 KLT 6 208], [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 841], [2020 GUJ LH 4 416], [2021 SCC 1 414], [2021 SCC CRI 1 667], [2020 ALD 6 94]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62368827/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f89406b9868c3226a8e7b51


The index page is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Overrules SR Batra Overruling Judgment Reportable Judgement or Order S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja | Leave a comment

Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors

Posted on October 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the National Commission for Minorities Act 1972 and various governmental schemes for the religious minorities at the expense of taxpayer money.


Here is the Petition copy.

Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors - Petition

On 2020-01-20

Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Jan 2020

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/hindus-suffering-for-being-born-in-majority-plea-in-sc-challenges-constitutionality-of-minorities-commission-welfare-schemes-for-religious-minorities

https://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/sc-issues-notice-plea-challenging-constitutionality-minority-commission-welfare-schemes-religious-minorities/

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-safeguards-for-non-islamic-properties-from-inclusion-of-waqf-plea-in-sc-challenges-the-constitutional-validity-of-waqf-act-1995-162164

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors Public Interest Litigation | Leave a comment

Hospitality Association of Mudumalai Vs In Defence of Environment and Animals and Ors on 14 Oct 2020

Posted on October 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court came to the protection of the Gentleman Elephants in the Elephant corridor in Nilgiris District.

Hospitality Association of Mudumalai Vs In Defence of Environment and Animals and Ors on 14 Oct 2020

The following is the Common Judgment passed by Madras High Court in 2011.

In Defence of Environment and Animals Vs PCCF and Others on 07 Apr 2011
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Hospitality Association of Mudumalai Vs In Defence of Environment and Animals and Ors Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Anil Bharadwaj Vs The High Court of MP and Ors on 13 Oct 2020

Posted on October 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A District-Judge aspirant lost that opportunity due to a false 498A IPC case from which he got acquitted, after the selection for the post completed.

Anil Bharadwaj Vs The High Court of MP and Ors on 13 Oct 2020

Earlier High Court Judgment dismissing the Writ petition

Anil Bhardwaj Vs The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 06 Jan 2020

~~~

Other Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103138593/


 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Anil Bharadwaj Vs The High Court of MP and Ors Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Legal Terrorism Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India and Ors on 16 Dec 1983

Posted on October 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice P.N. Bhagawati held as follows…

It is the fundamental right of every one in this Country, assured under the interpretation given to Article 21 by this Court in Francis Mullen’s case, to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity, enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials. Since the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39, Article 41 and 42 are not enforceable in a court of law, it may not be possible to compel the State through the judicial process to make provision by statutory enactment or executive fiat for ensuring these basic essentials which go to make up a life of human dignity but where legislation is already enacted by the State providing these basic requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity, with concrete reality and content, the State can certainly be obligated to ensure observance of such legislation for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21, more so in the context of Article 256 which provides that, the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India and Ors on 16 Dec 1983

Citations : [1984 AIR SC 802], [1984 SCC 3 161], [1984 SCR 2 67], [1983 SCALE 2 1151], [1984 SCC L&S 389], [1984 LABIC 560], [1984 LLN 2 60], [1984 UJ 16 29], [1984 AIR 802], [1984 LAB IC 560]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/595099/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac0fe4b014971140dea7


List of other case laws around Article 21 are here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India and Ors Right to Live with Human Dignity | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
republic_bharat

Republic Bharat - रिपब्लिक भारत

Verified account @republic_bharat ·
22 Aug

Pune Event Controversy: Rahul Gandhi के कार्यक्रम पर Influencer Rhea Khanolkar का बड़ा दावा
.
.
.
#RahulGandhi #RheaKhanolkar #ChhatronKiGoonj #PuneNews #CongressControversy #ViralVideo #InfluencerControversy #PoliticalNews

Reply on Twitter 2091140581506576784 Retweet on Twitter 2091140581506576784 748 Like on Twitter 2091140581506576784 1659 X 2091140581506576784
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
vijaygajerao

Office Of Vijay Patel

Verified account @vijaygajerao ·
19 Aug

My team and I at @OnlyFactIndia are exposing the Digipub cartel and their masters.

We don't have funding from foreign or local elites like these Marxists do.

Please support us so we can expose the foreign-funded ecosystem and its propaganda.

Jai Hind🙏

Reply on Twitter 2090093871053336700 Retweet on Twitter 2090093871053336700 1451 Like on Twitter 2090093871053336700 4789 X 2090093871053336700
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
aher_narendra

Narendra Aher

Verified account @aher_narendra ·
23 Aug

@rautsanjay61 माणसानं येड असावं पण एडजव नसावं!

Reply on Twitter 2091384295759941799 Retweet on Twitter 2091384295759941799 275 Like on Twitter 2091384295759941799 1039 X 2091384295759941799
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
aranganathan72

Anand Ranganathan

Verified account @aranganathan72 ·
23 Aug

Shocking state of a school in Fazilka, Punjab, with children braving the elements and forced to study in the open. The AAP govt had promised the children a new school building within 6 months. Today, that deadline expired.

Where is that roof, @ArvindKejriwal?

Reply on Twitter 2091527598161670436 Retweet on Twitter 2091527598161670436 6214 Like on Twitter 2091527598161670436 15309 X 2091527598161670436

Recent Posts

  • Sharif Ahmed and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 01 May 2024 August 23, 2026
  • Antics of Advocates in India August 14, 2026
  • Antics of Police Personnel in India August 14, 2026
  • Application for Closure of Prosecution Evidence – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft August 6, 2026
  • Ishwar Chand Sharma and Ors Vs State of U.P. on 29 May 2026 July 26, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (5,229 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,338 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,686 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (2,249 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,234 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (2,229 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (2,201 views)
  • Application for Certified Copy of FIR – Format, Procedure and Sample Draft (1,937 views)
  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (1,878 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case (1,802 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (440)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (426)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (388)Landmark Case (384)1-Judge Bench Decision (370)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (299)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (70)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (761)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (84)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case

Archives of SoK

  • August 2026 (4)
  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • 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 (28)
  • 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 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • 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 (97)
  • 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
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-09-02 September 2, 2026
    Jul 21, 15:30 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter on 2026-09-02 between 05:00 and 09:00 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 end-users in the affected region. For PNI / CNI customers […]
    Cloudflare

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 34.158.127.215 | S August 24, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 13 | First: 2026-07-19 | Last: 2026-08-24
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 343 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel