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

Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors

Posted on August 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi filed this WP with the following prayers

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

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

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

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

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

On 2020-08-27:

Status Quo Maintained. Adjourned to Sep 21st 2020


On 2020-09-21:

More time is given to file Counter-affidavits.

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

On 2020-10-06:

Multiple IAs are various subjects

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

On 2020-11-02:

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

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

 

 


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

 

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

P Venkataswara Rao Vs State of AP

Posted on August 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

 

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

Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July 2020

Posted on July 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

WP(PIL) 174/2019

 

 

23 July 2020

High Court dismissed the PIL finding no Public Interest but sufficient Political Interest here and here. Media favourable to YSRCP finds HC favouring TDP here. In case the original article is removed from site, here is a true copy saved from the site. This serves as Secondary evidence as per Evidence Act.

HC Favours TDP

 

17 December 2019

HC Orders probe here.

 

6 December 2019

Nara Chandra Babu inaugurates the Party Headquarters here and here.

MLA files PIL here.

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020

Posted on July 22, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In a short direction given to SEC Sri N.Ramesh Kumar, High Court said as follows:

In the meantime, petitioner is at liberty to take recourse as specified under Article 243K(3) of the Constitution of India, making a request to Hon’ble the Governor for implementation of the directions of this Court in terms of the Order dated 29-05-2020 in W.P. No. 8163 of 2020.

N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020

On this Direction from High Court, N Ramesh Kumar approached Hon’ble the Governor’s office seeking direction to State Government.


Hon’ble Governor’s Office was pleased to do the needful.

Secretary to Governor Letter to N Ramesh Kumar

Now the Entire Andhra Pradesh State is awaiting when the State Government will do suicide by not following Supreme Court direction which  directly assists in invocation of Article 356 of Constitution of India, which will therefore dismiss the State Government and promulgate President’s Rule in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Will this lead only to Suicide of State Government or something/someone else is also to be seen as time rolls on.


The earlier AP High Court Order is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CC Act Sec 12 - Contempt In Face Of Court N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors | Leave a comment

Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of AP has held in this Anticipatory Bail application, to be a falsely implicated case against petitioners. Certain guidelines were passed.

It is most unfortunate that the de facto complainant has implicated her in laws, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, parents of the mother-in-law and their relatives, two more sisters of her husband and their husbands who are residing in foreign countries. A reading of the complaint gives an impression that the de facto complainant has implicated almost all the relatives of her husband and their other close relatives who are visiting her husbands house. This is most unfortunate situation. This type of complaint gives an impression that Section 498-A is being misused to harass not only the husband of the de facto complainant but all his relatives. It is alleged that in order to force the husband to come to their terms or in order to meet their huge demands, this kind of complaints are being given. How difficult it would be for those persons staying in Australia, Jeddah or USA to come over to India and face the criminal case and prove their innocence.

Truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided unless fair and dispassionate investigation is completed. Sometimes, after full-fledged trial only, truth may come out. There cannot be any doubt to say that there is dowry menace in the society. But, at the same time, it is also a fact that certain marriages are performed without any dowry. Due to ill-advice or under a wrong impression that if a complaint is lodged under section 498-A IPC, the husband may come to terms, complaints are being lodged with the police. When differences arise, there should be proper counselling before and after marriage. It is quite natural that husband and wife would have faced different circumstances and environment from their childhood resulting in gaining different impressions and opinions and therefore they may have difference of opinion on life style and on several other issues. Therefore, issues have to be resolved by trying to understand one another, particularly, when the parties have children, special care has to be taken to protect the interest of the children. The welfare of the children should be given utmost importance. Therefore, proper counselling at initial stage would help the parties. It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.

Here are the guidelines.

It appears that there is every need to give similar directions in Andhra Pradesh. Under Domestic Violence Act, protection officer is required to assist the police and the Court. Section 14 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 envisages that the Magistrate may, at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondents or the aggrieved person either singly or jointly to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who posses such qualification and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-compoundable offence.
In the light of the above discussion, the following guidelines have been issued.
a) A fair and dispassionate investigation should be conducted. After completing investigation, the same should be verified by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
b) During the course of investigation, if the investigating officer is satisfied that there is false implication of any person in the complaint then he may delete the names of such persons from the charge sheet after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police or any other officer equivalent to that rank.
c) As soon as a complaint is received either from the wife alleging dowry harassment or from the husband that there is every likelihood of him being implicated in a case of dowry harassment, then, both the parties should be asked to undergo counselling with any experienced counsellor or counsellors. The report of such counsellors should be made as a part of the report to be submitted by the investigating officer to the Court.
d) The Superintendent of Police, in consultation with the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, may prepare a panel of counsellors and such panel of counsellors along with their address and phone numbers should be made available at all the police stations.
e) Normally, no accused should be arrested, where the allegation is simple dowry harassment. If the arrest is necessary during the course of investigation, the investigating officer should obtain permission of the Superintendent of Police or any other officer of the equal rank in metropolitan cities. If arrest is not necessary, the police may complete the investigation and lay charge sheet before the Court without arresting the accused and seek necessary orders from the Court. However, in the case of dowry death, suspicious death, suicide or where the allegations are serious in nature such as inflicting of bodily injury etc., the police officer may arrest the accused. However, the intimation of such arrest should be immediately sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police who may give necessary guidance to the arresting officer.
f) No accused or witness should be unnecessarily called to the police station and as soon as the purpose of summoning them to the police station is over they should be sent back. There should not be any unnecessary harassment to any person i.e. either to the relatives of the de facto complainant or to the relatives of the husband.
g) The higher police officers should see that the parties do not make any allegations that they are forced to come to any settlement in police stations against their wish. However, this does not mean that the police officers should not make any effort for amicable settlement.
h) The advocates have to play their role in trying to unite the families. They must act as social reformers while dealing with these kind of cases, particularly, where the couple have children. Even when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, they should examine the matter judiciously and consider whether there are valid grounds for remanding the accused to the judicial custody. No accused should be remanded to judicial custody mechanically in routine manner. If the Magistrate feels that the accused cannot be released after taking bonds, necessary orders may be passed accordingly.

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, is requested to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned in this regard.

 

Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014

Citations: [

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/

It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.


This is followed in AP High Court judgment here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors Legal Terrorism Preeti Gupta and Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand and Anr Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP | Leave a comment

Lanka Venkata Subrahmanyam Vs State of Telangana on 4 January 2018

Posted on June 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Baseless case against Secretary to Government LV Subrahmanyam was quashed by AP High Court.

Lanka Venkata Subrahmanyam Vs State of Telangana on 4 January 2018

 


Citations: [

Other Source links:

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Landmark Case Lanka Venkata Subrahmanyam Vs State of Telangana | Leave a comment

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K C Bhanu from AP High Court has held as follows:

From Para 2,

2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 224/1995. Chinna Chowk Police laid a charge-sheet against him, his parents and three sisters for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”. A single charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was framed against petitioner and A-2. After conclusion of trial and before judgment, the learned Magistrate framed separate charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against petitioner and A-2 and recalled P.Ws. 1 to 3 and cross-examination them. During their cross-examination, P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitted that they had given Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and presented gold jewels worth Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner and his father. At that stage, petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 4073/1998 before the Trial Court under Section 319, Cr.P.C, to implead P.Ws. 1 to 4 as accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, to be tried along with the other accused in the case, since both the giver and taker of dowry are equally liable for punishment under the Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed that application against which petitioner filed Crl. R.P. No. 15/1999 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision  holding that P.Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be tried as accused in the same trial as they are protected under Section 7(3) of the Act. It is as against the order of dismissal of the revision, A-1 filed the present petitioner to quash the said order.

From Para 7,

7. A plain reading of the above provision would go to show that giving or taking of dowry as well as abetment of giving or taking of dowry is an offence punishable under the Act. On the basis of the statements made before the Court by P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitting that they gave dowry, can they be tried as accused in the same trial, is the question.

From Para 10,

10. If P.Ws. 1 to 4, who were examined as witnesses, are added as accused and arrayed in the list, of the accused persons, the proceedings in respect of them shall have to be commenced afresh and thewitnesses reheard. It means they have to give evidence against themselves, which is not permissible under law. Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution provides that no person accused of any offenceshall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This protection is available to the person accused ofan offence not merely with respect to the evidence to be given in the Court-room in the course of trial butis also available to him at the previous stages, if an accusation has been made against him which might, in the normal course, result in his prosecution. It follows that the protection is available to a person againstwhom the formal accusation has been made though the actual trial may not have commenced as yet andif such an accusation relates to the commission of an offence which in the normal course may result in prosecution. In view of the above provisions, the witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 to 4, cannot be arrayed as accused along with petitioner and others in the same proceedings. If the Court wants to proceed against the persons of giving dowry, then it has to resort to the provision under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7(1)(b) of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon its own knowledge, or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or other relative of such person or by any recognized welfare institution or organization.

Further Section 7(3) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the timebeing in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.

Fundamental mistake in this case is, why police are NOT booking the Dowry givers asmushas Dowry takers in the FIR? Because in some States, Police circulars were issues precluding the Dowry givers from prosecution. So Police themselves decided that Dowry givers are not to be booked, which is totally contrary to what is said in Section 3(1).

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003

Citations: [2004 DMC 2 49], [2003 ALD 2 91], [2003 ALT CRI 2 253]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f83ce4b0149711141d5d

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91122848/

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law or Per Incuriam PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases | Leave a comment

Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K C Bhanu from AP High Court has held as follows in one of the shortest and cleanest Judgments I have read:

From Para 5,

5. Under Section 3 of the Act if any person, after the commencement of this Act gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable. It does not contemplate a demand or coercion or threat made by one person to another for the purpose of giving or taking dowry. Therefore, this provision makes it clear that giving or taking of dowry by any person is an offence. But Section 7(3) of the Act reads that  notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act. Therefore, Section 3 of the Act is controlled by cl. (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Ordinarily, the person  aggrieved by the offence is the person directly affected or injured. The person aggrieved by the offence is the accused in C.C.No.95 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, but not the complainant or the witnesses. Therefore, statement made by a person aggrieved by the offence is any one of the accused, but not the complainant. Hence, Section 7 (3) of the Act has no application to the present facts of the case. In this view of the matter, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012

Citations:

Other Source links:

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Justice K C Bhanu Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted | Leave a comment

Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu Vs Nooty Sindhu Sharma on 01 June 2020

Posted on June 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Order, AP HC held that, u/s 22 of Hindu Marriage Act, parties are prohibited from disclosing any information regarding the proceedings between them under HM Act and there is a penalty levied in case of this violation. This section is the protection given to parties for right of privacy during such proceedings.

Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu Vs Nooty Sindhu Sharma on 01 June 2020
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged HM Act Sec 22 - Proceedings to be in Camera and may not be Printed or Published Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu Vs Nooty Sindhu Sharma Right to Privacy | Leave a comment

Dr Kolaventy Sudhakara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Posted on June 5, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Visakhapatnam Police had, in May 2020, arrested publicly while beating Dr. Sudhakar, the anesthesiologist based in Visakhapatnam, on the road itself (for supposedly created nuisance on a national highway). Earlier he was suspended in April 2020, for questioning the lack of PPE kits to medical staff (which were allegedly diverted to Political buffoons of State Govt)

Facts here and here. Twisted Facts by this biased media here.

AP HC had taken suo moto cognizance of this case. Here is the Order for Investigation by CBI.

In re. Incident against Dr Sudhakar at Visakhapatnam on 22 May 2020

In WP/9725/2020, AP High Court ordered the discharge of Dr. Sudhakar, from the Government Hospital for Mental Care after following protocols since he was neither in CBI nor police custody, he could be released after getting permission from the superintendent of the hospital.

Kolaventy Kaveri Lakshmi Bhai Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 05 Jun 2020

Another Writ was disposed as infructuous due to release of Dr Sudhakar from the mental care hospital, Visakhapatnam. Here is the Order.

Dr.Kolaventy Sudhakara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 19 Jun 2020

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

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Dr Kolaventy Sudhakara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | 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
thisguyknowsai Brady Long @thisguyknowsai ·
22 Jun

A German psychologist proved in 1885 that cramming erases what you learned within 48 hours. He published the fix in the same book. Almost no school on Earth has adopted it in 140 years.

His name was Hermann Ebbinghaus.

He had no lab. No funding. No colleagues.

He worked alone

Reply on Twitter 2068965021514891696 Retweet on Twitter 2068965021514891696 901 Like on Twitter 2068965021514891696 2632 X 2068965021514891696
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
factcheckapgov FactCheck.AP.Gov.in @factcheckapgov ·
22 Jun

ఎంతో ప్రతిష్టాత్మకంగా నిర్వహించి ప్రజల ఆరోగ్యం పట్ల అవగాహన కల్పించిన అంతర్జాతీయ యోగా దినోత్సవం సందర్భంగా రాష్ట్రం లో పలుచోట్ల నిర్వహించిన యోగా కార్యక్రమం పై కొందరు తప్పుడు ప్రచారం చేస్తున్నారు. ఈ కార్యక్రమం కోసం రూ. 600 కోట్లు ఖర్చు అయినట్లు చెప్పడం పూర్తిగా అసత్యం. రాష్ట్రంలో

Reply on Twitter 2068972932827869255 Retweet on Twitter 2068972932827869255 38 Like on Twitter 2068972932827869255 85 X 2068972932827869255
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jaitdp Telugu Desam Party @jaitdp ·
22 Jun

చీఫ్ మినిస్టర్.. టీచర్ అయిన వేళ

అంగన్వాడీ కేంద్రాన్ని సందర్శించిన సీఎం చంద్రబాబు కాసేపు టీచర్‌గా మారి, పిల్లల అభ్యసనం ఎలా ఉందో తెలుసుకున్నారు. ఇంగ్లీష్ ఆల్ఫాబెట్స్ చెప్పమని సీఎం అడిగేసరికి పిల్లలు చక్కగా చెప్పారు.
#ChandrababuNaidu
#AndhraPradesh

Reply on Twitter 2068873963246399922 Retweet on Twitter 2068873963246399922 69 Like on Twitter 2068873963246399922 304 X 2068873963246399922
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jaynitx Jaynit @jaynitx ·
22 Jun

Marc Andreessen went on Chris Williamson's podcast and broke down exactly how Elon Musk runs multiple companies at once

No other CEO on Earth does this:

1. Every week, Musk shows up at each of his companies, identifies the single biggest problem that company is having that

Reply on Twitter 2069072158735942107 Retweet on Twitter 2069072158735942107 619 Like on Twitter 2069072158735942107 3267 X 2069072158735942107
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Pavul Yesu Dhasan Vs Registrar SHRC of TN and Ors on 30 Apr 2025 June 18, 2026
  • Manoj Kumar Vs Nita Bharti on 17 Mar 2026 June 17, 2026
  • Cruelty as a Criminal Offence Explained June 12, 2026
  • Bail Compliance Undertaking Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template June 12, 2026
  • Warning Signs of Escalating Matrimonial Litigation – Early Red Flags Every Spouse Should Recognize June 12, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,943 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,477 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,367 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,812 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,191 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,998 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,932 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,774 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,690 views)
  • Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (1,538 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (413)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (382)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (362)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (753)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (328)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (77)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)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 Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (9)
  • 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 Cloudflare Status

  • ARN (Stockholm) on 2026-06-25 June 25, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 25, 00:00 - 05:00 UTC Jun 19, 14:18 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ARN (Stockholm) datacenter on 2026-06-25 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • ARN (Stockholm) on 2026-06-24 June 24, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 24, 00:00 - 05:00 UTC Jun 19, 13:08 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ARN (Stockholm) datacenter on 2026-06-24 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-06-22 June 23, 2026
    Jun 23, 09:00 UTC Completed - The scheduled maintenance has been completed. Jun 22, 01:00 UTC In progress - Scheduled maintenance is currently in progress. We will provide updates as necessary. Jun 19, 06:32 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter between 2026-06-22 01:00 and 2026-06-23 09:00 UTC.Traffic might […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 34.14.86.214 | SD June 22, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 12 | First: 2026-01-12 | Last: 2026-06-22
  • 34.52.210.100 | S June 22, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2026-06-22 | Last: 2026-06-22
  • 45.174.88.88 | S June 22, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 10 | First: 2025-08-07 | Last: 2026-06-22
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1367 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel