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

Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has held that when proceeding against parents were quashed on the ground that Magistrate had taken cognizance after three years, husband also gets same benefit.

Although, the learned Single Judge of High Court dealt with various points raised by the appellants and negatived the same by recording the detailed order, his attention does not appear to have been drawn to the order dated 24.10.2006 passed by the co-ordinate bench in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003 whereby the proceedings of CC No.240/2002 were quashed qua the parents of the appellants on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance after three years. Respondent No.2 is not shown to have challenged the order passed in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003. Therefore, that order will be deemed to have become final. We are sure that if attention of the learned Single Judge, who decided Criminal Petition No.4152/2006 had been drawn to the order passed by another learned Single Judge in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003, he may have, by taking note of the fact that the learned Magistrate did not pass an order for condonation of delay or extension of the period of limitation in terms of Section 473 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings of CC No.240/2002.

 

Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007

Citations: [2007 AIOL 1286], [2007 SCALE 14 321], [2007 SCC 13 165], [2008 CRLJ SC 1375], [2007 SCR 13 478], [2009 SCC CRI 1 170], [2008 AIR SC 787], [2008 AIC SC 61 102], [2008 CRILJ 1375]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1494950/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135cd


Earlier judgment of AP High Court is available here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Quashed Due To Time Barred Cognizance CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Landmark Case Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr | Leave a comment

CrPC 175 – Power to summon persons

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) A police officer proceeding under section 174 may, by order in writing, summon two or more persons as aforesaid for the purpose of the said investigation, and any other person who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case and every person so summoned shall be bound to attend and to answer truly all questions other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(2) If the facts do not disclose a cognizable offence to which section 170 applies, such persons shall not be required by the police officer to attend a Magistrate’s Court.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 175 - Power to Summon Persons | Leave a comment

Anvar P.V Vs P.K.Basheer and Ors on 18 September 2014

Posted on July 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A 3-judge bench laid down the law to be followed in respect of electronic evidence as a secondary evidence.

Sec 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.

19. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record
shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield.

Special Law Prevails over General Law

22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.

Key Paragraph

24. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence on electronic record with reference to Section 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

 


Citations: [2015 MHLJ SC 2 135], [2015 RD 129 112], [2014 GUJ LH 3 305], [2014 KERLT 4 104], [2015 SUPREME 3 453], [2015 AIR SC 180], [2014 JT 10 459], [2015 SCC L&S 1 108], [2015 AWC SC 1 156], [2015 SCC CRI 1 24], [2015 ALR 111 811], [2014 SCC 10 473], [2015 JCC SC 1 214], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 732], [2014 AIOL 574], [2014 SLT 8 223], [2015 MPLJ SC 1 507], [2015 SCC CIV 1 27], [2015 KARLJ 1 547], [2014 SCALE 10 660], [2015 ALT CRI 3 161]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af58e4b01497114161f4

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Anvar P.V Vs P.K.Basheer and Ors Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Evidence Act 65B - Admissibility of electronic records Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes | Leave a comment

NCRB does not collect Info on Dowry Givers

Posted on July 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the Response I got from NCRB stating that ‘Information on persons arrested for crime of giving dowry is not collected by NCRB‘

NCRB does not collect Info on Dowry Givers
Posted in RTI Application | Tagged Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 DP Act 3 - Giving Abeting to Give Taking Abeting to Take are offences NCRB does not collect Info on Dowry Givers PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted | Leave a comment

Bishop Franco Mulakkal Vs State of Kerala on 07 July 2020

Posted on July 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Discharge Dismissal was challenged at Kerala High Court in Revision but got rejection.

Bishop Franco Mulakkal Vs State of Kerala on 07 July 2020

Here is the Session Court’s Dismissal Order of Discharge Petition:

Bishop Franco Mulakkal Vs State of Kerala on 16 March 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links:


Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Bishop Franco Mulakkal Vs State of Kerala CrPC 227 - Discharge | Leave a comment

Legal Litigation against Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy

Posted on June 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a compendium of litigation against Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy.

  1. C.C. No. 01 of 2012 [Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad; Sections 120-B, 379, 409, 411, 420, 427, 447 and 468 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”)and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “P.C.Act”)]
  2. C.C. No. 25 of 2013 [Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad; Sections 120-B and 420 of I.P.C. and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of P.C.Act]
  3. W.P. (Civil) No. 4124 of 2020 at Delhi High Court [Anna YSR Congress Party Vs The Election Commissioner of India thru it’s Chief Election Commissioner and Anr]. Last update here.
Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

LG Polymers India Private Limited Vs Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Posted on June 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court had passed an interim order on 15-06-2020, staying the NGT Order to appropriate the 50 Crores deposited by LG Polymers for 10 Days.

LG Polymers India Private Limited Vs Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 15 June 2020

In this Order dated 26-06-2020, Supreme Court extended the stay for 2 more weeks.

LG Polymers India Private Limited Vs Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 15 June 2020

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 In Re Poisonous gas leakage in Visakhapatnam LG Polymers India Private Limited Vs Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal Vs Arjun Panditrao Khotkar on 24 November 2017

Posted on June 27, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal Vs Arjun Panditrao Khotkar on 24 November 2017

Citations: [

Other Source links:

 


A Civil Appeal was filed at Supreme Court challenging above judgment here.

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Election Matter Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal Vs Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

CrPC 167 – Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours

Posted on June 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that—
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding—
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;
(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.
Explanation I.—For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.
Explanation II.—If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be:
Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution.
(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and, on the expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and, where no order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub-section, shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in paragraph (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2):
Provided that before the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Executive Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together with a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which was transmitted to him by the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be.
(3) A Magistrate authorising under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing.
(4) Any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate making such order shall forward a copy of his order, with his reasons for making it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary.
(6) Where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made under sub-section (5), the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or  otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub-section (5) and direct further investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify.


Index of all Bail matters is here.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 167 - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours | Leave a comment

CrPC 91 – Summons to produce document or other thing

Posted on June 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.
(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—
(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or
(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 91 - Summons to produce document or other thing | 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
exsecular

exsecular

Verified account @exsecular ·
8 Nov

Chor era ( don’t forget they hired 24 lawyers against Ram mandir ) to Modi Era 🚩🚩🔥🔥🚩🚩

Reply on Twitter 2119236931808862565 Retweet on Twitter 2119236931808862565 255 Like on Twitter 2119236931808862565 892 X 2119236931808862565
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
bjp4india

BJP

Verified account @bjp4india ·
8 Nov

This never gets old... Happy Diwali to you-know-who! 😉🪔

Reply on Twitter 2119407089118302307 Retweet on Twitter 2119407089118302307 3297 Like on Twitter 2119407089118302307 23657 X 2119407089118302307
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ani

ANI

Verified account @ani ·
7 Nov

#WATCH | Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh: At Ram ki Paidi, visitor Simona from Ukraine says, "... My sister invited me. I really like everything here. I am amazed by how beautiful everything looks..."

Reply on Twitter 2119119499194675541 Retweet on Twitter 2119119499194675541 897 Like on Twitter 2119119499194675541 7121 X 2119119499194675541
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
think_andhra

Think Andhra

@think_andhra ·
8 Nov

ఢిల్లీలో చంద్రబాబు నివాసం.. జన్‌పథ్‌ 1లోని 100 ఏళ్ల చారిత్రక భవనానికి కొత్త రూపు!

#Chandrababu #1Janpath #CMResidence #LutyensDelhi #thinkandhra

Reply on Twitter 2119384437049667945 Retweet on Twitter 2119384437049667945 24 Like on Twitter 2119384437049667945 202 X 2119384437049667945

Recent Posts

  • Ravichandragouda R Patil Vs KSBC and Anr on 18 Nov 2025 November 7, 2026
  • Sushila Vs Joginder on 13 Sep 2023 November 6, 2026
  • Thangam Venkatesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors on 23 Oct 2026 October 29, 2026
  • Mukul Mittal Vs Sr. Superintendent at RPO Delhi on 02 Feb 2026 October 27, 2026
  • Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and Anr on 19 Dec 2025 October 27, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,279 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (942 views)
  • Surety Affidavit Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template (818 views)
  • Application for Addition of Relevant Documents to Case Record – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (669 views)
  • Second Anticipatory Bail Application – Is It Legally Possible? Complete Strategy (601 views)
  • Sachin Arora Vs Manju Arora on 02 Jul 2026 (596 views)
  • How to Handle Hostile Witnesses in Criminal Trials – Complete Defence Strategy (568 views)
  • Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 (567 views)
  • How to File a Complaint Against an Advocate in India – A First-Timer’s Complete Guide (510 views)
  • Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (510 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (454)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (438)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (391)Landmark Case (391)1-Judge Bench Decision (386)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (304)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (72)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (63)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (44)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (43)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (43)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (773)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 (193)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (170)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (97)Legal Procedure/Tool (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (72)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (60)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (55)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (45)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • Aman Kumar on Case Lifecycle Explorer – BNS s.85, DV Act and Maintenance
  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • 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

Archives of SoK

  • November 2026 (2)
  • October 2026 (19)
  • September 2026 (13)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • 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

  • SIN (Singapore) on 2026-11-23 November 23, 2026
    Nov 10, 17:41 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SIN (Singapore) datacenter on 2026-11-23 between 18:00 and 22:00 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 Status

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

  • 150.5.149.79 | S November 10, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 13 | First: 2026-11-06 | Last: 2026-11-10
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 271 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel