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

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Girdharilal Sapuru And Ors on 11 February 1981

Posted on February 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Landmark judgment, Supreme Court had held that,

5. It, however, appears that the respondents contended that the revision petition was barred by limitation. Even this contention is founded on a very technical ground that even though the revision petition was filed very much in time the requisite power of attorney of the learned advocate on behalf of the petition was not legally complete and when it was re-submitted the limitation had expired. Without going into the nicety of this too technical contention, we may notice that Section 397 of the CrPC enables the High Court to exercise power of revision suo motu and when the attention of the High Court was drawn to a clear illegality the High Court could not have rejected the petition as time barred thereby perpetuating the illegality and miscarriage of justice. The question whether a discharge order is interlocutory or otherwise need not detain us because it is settled by a decision of this Court that the discharge order terminates the proceedings and, therefore it is revisable under Section 397(1), Cr.P.C and -Section 397(1) in terms confers power of suo motu revision on the High Court, and if the High Court exercises suo motu revision power the same cannot be denied on the ground that there is some limitation prescribed for the exercise of the power because none such is prescribed. If in such a situation the suo motu power is not exercised what a glaring illegality goes unnoticed can be demonstrably established by this case itself. We however, do not propose to say a single word on the merits of the cause because there should not be even a whimper of prejudice to the accused who in view of this judgment would have to face the trial before the learned Magistrate.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Girdharilal Sapuru And Ors on 11 February 1981

Citations: [1981 ACR SC 161], [1981 AIR SC 1169], [1981 PLR 83 593], [1981 SCC 2 758], [1981 UJ 13 217], [1981 CRI LJ 632], [1981 CRLJ 0 632], [1981 SCC CRI 1 598], [1981 UJ SC 1 217], [1981 CAR 348], [1981 CRLR 275], [1981 SCC CR 598]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1790776/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abf1e4b014971140db74


 

Post Views: 178
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 397 - Calling for records to exercise powers of revision CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 397/401 - Revision Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Girdharilal Sapuru And Ors Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Anju and 6 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 December 2013

Posted on February 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Allahabad High Court has cited a landmark judgment here to hold as follow,

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid verdict Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Girdharilas Sapuru and others (Supra) has held that the discharge order terminates the proceeding and, therefore, it is revisable under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. This Court while passing the order in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11721 of 2012 (Supra) has held that an order refusing discharge is not an interlocutory order, inasmuch as if the said application is allowed, it would terminate the proceedings, therefore, the revision against the said order would be maintainable.
In view of the aforesaid decisions, the revision against dismissing the discharge application was very well maintainable before the learned lower revisional court and as such, the order passed by the learned lower revisional court is not sustainable in law.

Anju and 6 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 December 2013 CRLP(A)_20954_2013

Citations:

Other Source links: http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=6568265 or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e4224a93261a672e216f


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Post Views: 115
Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Anju and 6 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 397/401 - Revision | Leave a comment

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020

Posted on January 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A wonderful pronouncement indeed, of a 5-eminent judge Constitutional bench which decided that once Anticipatory Bail is granted u/s 438 CrPC by either a Sessions Court or High Court, it does not have any time limit to it regarding it’s effect. Further, here it was held, No need to get a Regular Bail once AB is granted.

From now onwards, no need to covert Anticipatory Bail into a Regular Bail, upon closure of investigation by I.O. and filing of Charge sheet into a Trial Court.

Here is the Order passed.

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020 Order

And the 133-page jewel of judgment, endorsing the view taken by my favorite Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandavi in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre is below.

From Para 69 of the judgment of Justice Ravindra Bhat (On page 112),

69. Therefore, this court holds that the view expressed in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh, K.L. Verma, Nirmal Jeet Kaur, Satpal Singh, Adri Dharan Das, HDFC Bank, J.J. Manan and Naresh Kumar Yadav (supra) about the Court of Sessions, or the High Court, being obliged to grant anticipatory bail, for a limited duration, or to await the course of investigation, so as the “normal court” not being “bye passed” or that in certain kinds of serious offences, anticipatory bail should not be granted normally- including in economic offences, etc are not good law. The observations – which indicate that such time related or investigative event related conditions, should invariably be imposed at the time of grant of anticipatory bail are therefore, overruled. Similarly, the observations in Mhetre that “the courts should not impose restrictions on the ambit and scope of section 438 Cr.P.C. which are not envisaged by the Legislature. The court cannot rewrite the provision of the statute in the garb of interpreting it” is too wide and cannot be considered good law. It is one thing to say that as a matter of law, ordinarily special conditions (not mentioned in Section 438 (2) read with Section 437 (3) should not be imposed; it is an entirely different thing to say that in particular instances, having regard to the nature of the crime, the role of the accused, or some peculiar feature, special conditions should not be imposed. The judgment in Sibbia itself is an authority that such conditions can be imposed, but not in a routine or ordinary manner and that such conditions then become an inflexible “formula” which the courts would have to follow. Therefore, courts and can, use their discretion, having regard to the offence, the peculiar facts, the role of the offender, circumstances relating to him, his likelihood of subverting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice- to impose special conditions. Imposing such conditions, would have to be on a case to case basis, and upon exercise of discretion by the court seized of the application under Section 438. In conclusion, it is held that imposing conditions such as those stated in Section 437 (2) while granting bail, are normal; equally, the condition that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Other conditions, which are restrictive, are not mandatory; nor is there any invariable rule that they should necessarily be imposed or that the anticipatory bail order would be for a time duration, or be valid till the filing of the FIR, or the recording of any statement under Section 161, Cr. PC, etc. Other conditions may be imposed, if the facts of the case so warrant.

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020 Judgement

Citations : [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 98], [2020 DLT SC 266 741]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123660783/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sushila-aggarwal-and-others-versus-state-nct-of-delhi-and-another

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sushila-aggarwal-and-others-versus-state-nct-of-delhi-and-another

5-judge bench holds no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail [Full report]


The life of this case is in detail available here.


Index of all Anticipatory Bail Matters is here and all Bail matters list is here.

Post Views: 651
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC Sec 438 - Anticipatory Bail CrPC Sec 438 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest CrPC Sec 438 - Valid Duration For Anticipatory Bail Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) | Leave a comment

S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001

Posted on January 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Unless a valid marriage is proved, a second marriage stands invalid and no offence under section 494 IPC attracts.

S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001

Citations: [2001 AIR SC 3576], [2001 SCALE 6 42], [2001 JT 7 219], [2001 AIR SC 3372], [2001 SCC 7 487], [2001 SUPREME 6 772], [2001 SCC CRI 1273], [2001 OLR 2 648], [2001 ALD CRI 2 634], [2001 AWC SC 4 2998], [2001 ACR SC 3 2486], [2001 DMC SC 2 544], [2002 ALT CRI 1 69]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1386675/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad9ce4b0149711411daa


 

Post Views: 543
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami State Amendment | Leave a comment

498A IPC Judgments

Posted on January 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here I will list all judgments both from Supreme Court of India and Various High Courts that may be used in the false cases filed u/s 498A IPC

Once you get hold of your case documents on First date of appearance in Court, see if there are any possible grounds to come out of false cases. This is possible in 2 ways.

  1. By filing a Discharge Petition u/s 239 CrPC at the Trial Court where this false 498A IPC case is filed.
  2. By filing a Quash Petition u/s 482 CrPC at the High Court in that State, where this false 498A IPC case is filed.

This page here contains the provisions available under the above provisions along with Judgments.

 

Supreme Court Judgments

  1. Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs State of Maharashtra on 24 Apr 2002
  2. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra on 11 Nov 2010

 

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Post Views: 853
Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged IPC 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Summary Post | Leave a comment

Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif on 11 May 2011

Posted on January 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A Hindu woman who had converted to Islam and got 2 kids from a muslim husband, after he divorced her via Triple Talaq, re-converted to Hinduism and married this Pilot. Once Pilot realized the conversion and re-conversion episode, he filed for Nullity petition. At Supreme Court, it was held that, the woman was properly divorce from first marriage and was a Hindu, by the time of her marriage, so nullity was denied.

Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif on 11 May 2011

Citations: [(2011 RCR CIVIL SC 3 640], [2011 SCC 6 139], [2011 JT 14 530], [2011 SCALE 5 601], [2011 AIR SC 2053], [2011 SUPREME 4 57], [2011 ANJ SC 2 61], [2011 AIOL 373], [2011 SCC CIV 3 234], [2011 ALR 86 902], [2011 CTC 4 783], [2011 LW 4 840], [2012 CUTLT 113 193], [2011 AIR SC 3142], [2011 MAHLJ 5 176], [2011 MPLJ 4 28], [2011 AIC 102 47], [2011 GUJLR 3 2006], [2011 CHN 3 11], [2011 ALD SC 5 51], [2011 AWC SC 4 4282], [2012 CLT SC 113 193], [2011 DMC SC 2 400], [2011 GLR 3 2006], [2011 JCR SC 3 280], [2011 KLJ 2 16], [2011 MHLJ 5 176], [2011 MLJ SC 7 827], [2011 OLR SC 2 108], [2011 RLW SC 3 2683]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/731156/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af00e4b0149711415503


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Post Views: 517
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif HM Act 11 - Void marriages Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Nullity Petition Dismissed Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil on 06 March 2019

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The husband did a ‘Marriage deed’ (whatever that means) separation with his first wife and married the second woman.

13.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that the appellant filed the marriage petition for a declaration to declare her marriage with the respondent as null and void on the ground that, at the time of their marriage, the first marriage of the respondent with his first wife was subsisting; that the  respondent committed a fraud and suppressed the material fact of his first marriage, and in fact, in the registration form he stated himself to be a bachelor.

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil on 06 March 2019

Citations: [(2019) SCC Online SC 329]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163532688/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c8148999eff4345648def96


 

Post Views: 977
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision HM Act 11 - Lied on Registration Form HM Act 11 - Void marriages Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Non-Reportable Judgement or Order Nullity Petition Allowed Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil | Leave a comment

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 02 April 2019

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court has quashed this 498A IPC case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband since the complaint is full of junk vague and non-specific allegations.

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 02 April 2019

The Supreme Court had crushed another false DV case by this liar and quashed it on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband here.


Citations: [

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d4be4364a9326071f285522


The Index of these cases is here.

Post Views: 484
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives DP Act 3 - Not Made Out DP Act 4 - Not Made Out DP Act 6 - Not Made Out Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 18 February 2019

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this false DV case, Justice JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, discussed two contentions but adjudicated only on one aspect.

  1. Vague and General Allegations
  2. No jurisdiction to Karnataka Courts
Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 18 February 2019

The Supreme Court crushed this judgment here and quashed the false DV case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband.


Citations: [

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cc473859eff43397d6ab68f


The Index of these cases is here.

Post Views: 498
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala | Leave a comment

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice R.Banumathi has delivered this wonderful judgment in a false DV Case, holding that,

9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant No.14 is the husband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.4, 6 and 10 are the wives of appellants No.3, 5 and 9  respectively. Appellants No.7 and 8 are the parents of appellant No.1. Appellants No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai. Appellants No.7 to 10 are the residents of State of Rajasthan and appellants No.11 to 13 are the residents of State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and appellant No.1 has been at Chennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the respondent and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are averments of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of appellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held  responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case against the other appellants No.3 to 13. Since there are no specific allegations against appellants No.3 to 13, the criminal case of domestic violence against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed.

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

The Lower High Court judgment in the DV Case is here that got quashed in Supreme Court.

The liar filed a false 498A IPC case also on all 14 accused. Except husband and In-laws, the false case on all 11 others got quashed at Karnataka High Court here.


Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 65], [2020 SCC 3 14], [2020 SCC CRI 1 722], [2020 AIR SC 762], [2020 KLT 1 666], [2020 KLJ 1 799]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41851528/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e2a8c723321bc23c21105d2

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/shyamlal-devda-and-others-versus-parimala


The Index of these cases is here.

Post Views: 596
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed PWDV Act Sec 12 - Inquire Prima Facie DV Before Issuing Notice to Respondents Reportable Judgement or Order | 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
hphobiawatch

Hindutva Knight

Verified account @hphobiawatch ·
1 Oct

Our Hero. Their Hero

2

Reply on Twitter 2105521269458502116 Retweet on Twitter 2105521269458502116 3769 Like on Twitter 2105521269458502116 26396 X 2105521269458502116
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
dhamimemeforce

Dhami Meme Force

Verified account @dhamimemeforce ·
1 Oct

Aura. Laura

2

Reply on Twitter 2105522699271618842 Retweet on Twitter 2105522699271618842 38 Like on Twitter 2105522699271618842 326 X 2105522699271618842
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
hphobiawatch

Hindutva Knight

Verified account @hphobiawatch ·
1 Oct

Ek Sutta do Chaay
Musalman haay haay

Reply on Twitter 2105524889209971190 Retweet on Twitter 2105524889209971190 187 Like on Twitter 2105524889209971190 2439 X 2105524889209971190
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
hphobiawatch

Hindutva Knight

Verified account @hphobiawatch ·
1 Oct

"our generation have seen draught in Maharashtra but I promise our next generation won't see the draught"

~CM Devendra Fadnavis

Reply on Twitter 2105529198823821701 Retweet on Twitter 2105529198823821701 74 Like on Twitter 2105529198823821701 752 X 2105529198823821701

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court: PF and employee share-plan deductions cannot shrink the income used to assess child maintenance September 29, 2026
  • Pradeep Ram Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 1 Jul 2019 September 24, 2026
  • Video Conferencing Links of District Judiciary of Andhra Pradesh September 24, 2026
  • Practical Solutions Inc Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 19 Jan 2026 September 24, 2026
  • Md. Mashood and Ors Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Feb 2026 September 24, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (2,090 views)
  • Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022 - Judgement Summary (1,666 views)
  • How Courts Quash Omnibus Allegations in Matrimonial FIRs - Case Study (1,563 views)
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,173 views)
  • Application for Exemption from Personal Appearance During Investigation – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,062 views)
  • Application for Modification of Bail Conditions – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (927 views)
  • Myth vs Reality: Bail in 498A Cases – Legal Position Explained (926 views)
  • Charul Shukla Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Mar 2026 - Judgment Summary (902 views)
  • Exemption Application Under Section 205 CrPC – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (880 views)
  • Representation for Deletion of Name from FIR – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (866 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (446)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (431)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (389)Landmark Case (387)1-Judge Bench Decision (376)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (302)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 (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)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (767)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 (190)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 (85)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)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (54)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 (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • 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
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy

Archives of SoK

  • 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

  • DEL (New Delhi) on 2026-10-29 October 29, 2026
    Sep 17, 17:11 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in DEL (New Delhi) datacenter between 2026-10-29 21:00 and 2026-10-30 01:00 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 […]
    Cloudflare Status

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

  • 105.27.127.194 | SD October 2, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 135 | First: 2026-01-26 | Last: 2026-10-02
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 3870 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel