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 Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 09 Nov 2020

Posted on November 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division Bench of Bombay High Court, while denying interim protection from arrest to Arnab Goswami, held that,

From Para 45,

45. The principle stated therein will equally apply to the exercise of this Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while considering the applications for bail since the petitioner is already in Judicial custody. The legislature has provided specific remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for applying for regular bail. Having regard to the alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has to exercise judicial restraint while entertaining application in the nature of seeking regular bail in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

and from Para 70,

70. In our opinion, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to apply for regular bail. At the time of concluding the hearing of Applications, we had made it clear that if the petitioner, if so advised, to apply for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned Court, then, in that case, we have directed the concerned Court to decide the said
application within four days from filing of the same.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 09 Nov 2020

Here is the Bail application

Arnab Bail Application
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 173 - Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Police Closure Reports | Leave a comment

Kovelamudi Kanika Dhillon Vs Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao on 26 Oct 2020

Posted on November 3, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Film maker K Raghavendra Rao’s son Prakash Kovelamudi‘s MCD case disposed of by Bombay High Court, waiving of 6-month cooling period as decided here, as his wife Kanika Dhillon was pregnant with another man.

Kovelamudi Kanika Dhillon Vs Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao on 26 Oct 2020

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 6 Months Cooling Period is Directional and not Mandatory Kovelamudi Kanika Dhillon Vs Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao Mutual Consent Divorce Sensational Or Peculiar Cases | Leave a comment

Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors

Posted on October 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors on 22 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors | Leave a comment

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Posted on October 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Vagua allegations don’t take fake cases far. Bombay HS quashed the fake case of 498A IPC against the relatively.

From Para 14,

14. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations, against every member of the family of the husband, implicating everybody under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least prima facie.

 

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 482 – FIR Quashed CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives IPC 498a - Not Made Out Against Parents or Relatives Legal Terrorism Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Narendra K. Ambwani Vs Union of India on 13 Mar 2014

Posted on September 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division Bench of Bombay High Court has passed the following directions to Passport Authorities, regarding renewal of passport, wherein Magistrate has given permission to do so.

6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue.

 

10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate’s court has directed that the passports may be renewed as per the “Rules”.

Here are the directions…

11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions :-
(a) In all cases where the Magistrate’s court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other
than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All
qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for atleast ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants atleast for ten years.
(b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the
additional booklet to the same passport provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad.
(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the passport
shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport
of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned.

Narendra K. Ambwani Vs Union of India on 13 Mar 2014
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India Narendra K. Ambwani Vs Union of India Passport Renewal for 10 Years | 2 Comments

Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 04 Mar 2020

Posted on September 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Another good judgment based on landmark rulings from DB of Bombay High Court as well as Apex Court, on renewal of a Passport for full term of 10 years.

6. In view of the directions given by this Court in the said judgment, therefore, the Respondents were duty bound to follow the said directions and ought to have renewed thepassport for a period of ten years. It has to be borne in mind that whenever a criminal complaint is pending against an applicant, who wishes to travel abroad, the Magistrate alone has a jurisdiction to impose conditions regarding his right to travel abroad. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the Applicant should not be permitted to travel abroad, he can reject his application. However, when an application is made forrenewal of passport, the Passport Authorities have to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It appears that the Central Government has issued a Notification by exercising a power vested in them under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and in the said Notification, it has been mentioned that the passport can be renewed for a period of one year. There being an ambiguity under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Notification issued by the Passport Authorities, this Court was pleased to clarify the said ambiguity in the case of Narendra Ambwani (supra). The Passport Authorities do not have the right to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad or not and that right is vested in the Magistrate, who can impose condition if an application is made, seeking permission to travel abroad. The Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : 1978 SCR (2) 621)] has held that the right to travel for the purpose of business and service is a part of a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions, which are imposed by the Act and by the Court. In the present case, the Applicant on account of his service as a Flight Person has to travel abroad continuously and there is no possibility of absconding since he has to return back along with the fight. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we direct the Passport Authorities to renew the passport for a period of 10 years. It is clarified that, however, the Applicant will have to apply to the Magistrate seeking permission to travel abroad. If such an application is made, the Magistrate may impose such conditions as deem ft and proper.”

Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 04 Mar 2020
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India Passport Renewal for 10 Years | Leave a comment

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that, “Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry”

From Para 6,

Dowry in the sense of that expression contemplated by Act 28 of 1961 is a demand for property or valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage. In other words it is a consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. Where the demand for property or valuable security has no connection with the consideration for the marriage, it will not amount to a demand for dowry. In the instant case, the evidence has to be properly understood and thus viewed it is clear that what the appellants wanted was valuable presents to be made to appellant Mahadeo on the occasion of festivals like Deepavali. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the presents are customarily given to sons-in-law on festive occasions and giving of such presents is in no way connected with the wedding or marriage. It is a post-marriage expectation and the expectation and performance thereof once restricted to the affluents and the middle class, has now spread its tentacles to the poor also. The expectation is because of the relationship, but without any nexus to the agreement to marry. Therefore, it does not amount to dowry. Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry. This is clear from the qualifying clause of section 2 in Act 28 of 1961 reproduced above.

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Citations: [1993 (3) BomCR 473]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/553393/

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Not Proved DP Act 4 – Money Demand Not In Connection Of Marriage Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that, Irrespective of when a demand was made, either during/before marriage or subsequent to marriage, section 4 offence is made out.

From Para 7,

Having regard to the dominant object of the Act which is to stamp out the practice of demanding dowry in any shape or form either before or after the marriage. The entire definition of the word ‘dowry’ should not be imported into Section 4 and a liberal construction has to be given to the word ‘dowry’ used in Section 4 to mean that any property or valuable security which if consented to be given on the demand being made would become dowry within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. The object of Section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for ‘giving’ property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Act. There is no warrant for taking the view that the initial demand for giving of property or valuable security would not constitute an offence and that an offence would take place only when the demand was made again after the party on whom the demand was made agreed to comply with it.

Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001

Citations: [2001 CriLJ 2792]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/737573/

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra | 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

Vidyasagar Irappa Mane Vs The State of Maharashtra on 13 April 2018

Posted on June 3, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

IPC 494 cannot be sustained just by mere admission of second marriage by husband but it has to be proved by the complainant-wife that such second marriage was valid marriage as per Hindu Marriage Act.

Vidyasagar Irappa Mane Vs The State of Maharashtra on 13 April 2018
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged IPC 494 - Not Made Out Vidyasagar Irappa Mane Vs The State of Maharashtra | 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
andhrafact మన ఆంధ్ర @andhrafact ·
20h

వాడే🃏vs వీడు🧛‍♂️=సిగ్గుమాలిన అపరిచుతుడు

రాష్ట్ర మద్య నీళ్లున్న చోట WASHINGTONకడతా,center ఇవ్వదు అయినా కడతా.నా బుర్రలో వచ్చే ఆలోచనతో కడతా.CBN వల్ల కాదు ఎట్లా చెయ్యాలో ACCENTUREతో 10 సిట్టింగు వేసా,ఇదిగో డిటైల్డ్ plan.రాజధాని RE హంగామాతో 2BILLION$ తెస్తా🧛‍♂️

vs

రాజధాని అంటే ఏంటి?🃏

Reply on Twitter 2062217009140576691 Retweet on Twitter 2062217009140576691 37 Like on Twitter 2062217009140576691 77 X 2062217009140576691
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
narendramodi Narendra Modi @narendramodi ·
3 Jun

Delighted to meet the Chairman of the Rastriya Swatantra Party of Nepal Mr. Rabi Lamichhane. I welcome and fully share his desire to work closely together for a shared and prosperous future.

Nepal is a priority partner under our Neighbourhood First policy and we look forward to

Reply on Twitter 2062085139031810119 Retweet on Twitter 2062085139031810119 4893 Like on Twitter 2062085139031810119 36952 X 2062085139031810119
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
pradip103 Pradeep Bhandari(प्रदीप भंडारी)🇮🇳 @pradip103 ·
7h

CONGRESS ALLOWS SHARIA COMPLIANT GYM IN KERALA!

Congress’ win in Kerala has ensured one thing : IUML gets a free hand and Congress bends itself to the diktats of Muslim League.

Kerala’s so-called ‘Islam-friendly gym’ mandates No music. Gender segregation. Mandatory religious

Reply on Twitter 2062415901740470707 Retweet on Twitter 2062415901740470707 173 Like on Twitter 2062415901740470707 410 X 2062415901740470707
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ani ANI @ani ·
2 Jun

#WATCH | Maharashtra: The passing out parade at the Combat Army Aviation Training School in Nashik, concluded on an emotional note for a couple as Captain Bharat Bhardwaj proposed marriage to his partner.

Reply on Twitter 2061739907320860704 Retweet on Twitter 2061739907320860704 858 Like on Twitter 2061739907320860704 14162 X 2061739907320860704
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Are Offices of Dowry Prohibition Officers in AP designated as Police Stations? June 3, 2026
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 June 2, 2026
  • Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018 May 28, 2026
  • Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022 May 27, 2026
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 May 26, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,829 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,359 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,189 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,436 views)
  • Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025 (2,125 views)
  • Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 (2,087 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (1,989 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,877 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,783 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,564 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (411)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (381)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (361)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)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (752)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (327)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 (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (58)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 Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • 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)
  • ShadesOfKnife on Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (2)
  • 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

  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 15, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 28, 22:16 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, but customers will be unable to create/delete/modify tunnels, routes, hostname routes, virtual networks, devices and tunnel configurations via the Dashboard or the public […]
  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 4, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 21, 00:41 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, customers will be unable to modify configurations via the Dashboard or the public API for a period of up to 3 minutes. This […]
  • Network Congestion in Frankfurt June 4, 2026
    Jun 4, 06:59 UTC Resolved - Cloudflare observed network congestion in Frankfurt from 05:53 UTC to 06:08 UTC. The issue is now resolved.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 193.193.237.158 | SD June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,352 | First: 2025-11-25 | Last: 2026-06-03
  • 158.94.211.154 | S June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 987 | First: 2026-01-28 | Last: 2026-06-03
  • 45.164.196.232 | S June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 5 | First: 2026-06-03 | Last: 2026-06-03
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 596 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel