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: District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification

State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024

Posted on December 25, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

I won’t comment about this Judgment. Posting here, with a hope that it may be set aside at a higher court.

State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024
Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Convicted Under IPC 498A State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors | Leave a comment

Devi Prasanna Nayak Vs Deepak Malviya on 24 Nov 2021

Posted on June 23, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Sessions Judge of Saket Court at Delhi held as follows,

From Para 14,

14. The issue that in appropriate cases, costs can also be imposed while dismissing revision petition is no longer res integra. Reliance can be placed upon judgments of our own Hon’ble High Court in the matter of Vijay Ghai v. State Crl. M. C. No. 3669/2011 decided on 01.11.2013 and M/s Miracle Infoweb Pvt. Ltd. v. State, Crl. M. C. No. 4529/2013 decided on 07.11.2013. To illustrate, observations of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi v. NCT of Delhi & Anr , Crl. M.C No. 4504/2013 and Crl. M. A No. 16125/2013 decided on 27.11.2013 while imposing costs in a criminal revision can be reproduced here as under:
“…22. Imposition of Costs- 22.1 Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. The cost should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigants, and the harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigations and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through Court. The costs imposed by the Courts must be the real costs equal to the deprivation suffered by the rightful person and also considering how long they have compelled the other side to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. In appropriate cases, the Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. The parties raise fanciful claims and contests because the Courts are reluctant to order prosecution. The relevant judgments in support of this preposition are as under:-
“22.2 In Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, the Supreme Court has held that the Courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and have to be realistic in imposing the costs. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:-
“52. …C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial
proceedings…
***
54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the Defendants or the Respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges
towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc.
55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the Defendants or Respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The Appellants in the instant case have harassed the Respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The Appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.
56. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation.”
22.3 In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Supreme Court held that heavy costs and prosecution should be ordered in cases of false claims and defences as under:-
“82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court’s otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of
actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial
proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied)”
22.4 In Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, 154 (2008) DLT 411, this Court imposed costs of Rs.15.1 lakhs and noted as under:
“6. The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds that using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such litigants which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the Courts. One of the aim of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all cases should be the real costs
equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person.
***
9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for over-flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts…” (Emphasis supplied)”

Devi Prasanna Nayak Vs Deepak Malviya on 24 Nov 2021
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 397 - Calling for records to exercise powers of revision CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 397/399 - Revision Dismissed Devi Prasanna Nayak Vs Deepak Malviya Dismissed with Costs | Leave a comment

Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

It was held that there were no justifiable reasons for living separately.

From Para 13,

13) According to Respondents, the 1st Petitioner voluntarily left the company of the Respondent in the year 2014 and went to her parents house and refused to join him despite several attempts by Respondent. On the other hand, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that 1st Petitioner was necked out from matrimonial home on 27/05/2015 after she was severely beaten by the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the Criminal Case was filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Petitioner are presently residing at the house of parents of 1st Petitioner. The reason for disputes between P.W.1 and the Respondent are not entirely proved. Except for admission of pending Criminal case filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent under Section 498AIPC and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no proof produced on behalf of the Petitioners to prove that the Respondent was responsible for beating her and for demanding additional dowry. The initial burden in a Maintenance Case is on the Petitioner and only after proving the facts stated by her, the burden shifts onto the Respondent. In the instant case, as discussed above, none of the allegations levelled by the 1st Petitioner against the Respondent have been proved. Since the fact that the 1st Petitioner and 2nd Petitioner are living separately from the Respondent is undisputed and justifiable reasons for living separately are not established by 1st Petitioner, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the 1st Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent.

Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Denied Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju | Leave a comment

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A DJ Court refused to interfere into a maintenance dismissal order for wife, as she voluntarily left the company of respondent.

From Para 11,

11. As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1 she admitted that after their marriage, her sister stayed along with them in Uppal Area, till her marriage and the respondent respected her sister. P.W.1 further admitted that she did not file any documentary proof to show that her mother sold Ac 1.00 land and gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent to settle the matter with Amala Jyothi. P.W.1 also admitted that she studied M.Sc., Computers and she left the house of her husband without informing him and she is not willing to join with the respondent to lead marital life. P.W.1 further admitted that her parents and elders went to Aswapuram for mediation, she filed D.V.C case and Sec.498-A IPC case against him. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1, she did not choose to examine any witnesses or any documentary proof in support her version to prove that her parents gave Rs.10,00,000/- cash to the respondent and also gave Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent and his father by selling Ac 1.00 land by her mother to settle the dispute with Amala Jyothi and the respondent was addicted to vices and failed to provide maintenance to her. Further as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 it appears that even the respondent is ready to maintain the petitioner, she is not willing to join the company of respondent to lead marital life. In such circumstances, in the absence of reliable evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court rightly concluded that the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent without sufficient cause as she voluntarily left the company of respondent. Hence, I see there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of trial court.

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Denied Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh | Leave a comment

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Posted on June 19, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Maintenance was denied to wife, because she could not prove her allegations with cogent evidences.

From Para 14,

14) Broadly speaking there is no dispute about the legal status of 1st Petitioner as lawfully wedded wife of the Respondent and the legal status of the
2nd Petitioner as the son of the 1st Petitioner and the Respondent. Upon perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2, it is admitted fact that the marriage of 1st Petitioner and Respondent was performed on 13.06.2012. Admittedly P.W.1 and Respondent lived happily for one and 1/2 years i.e., only after few months after the birth of the 2nd Petitioner in the year 2013. Admittedly, P.W.1 began living away from her husband at her parents house when the 2nd Petitioner was aged 11 months old i.e., from March, 2014. There is variation in the evidence of the Petitioners and Respondent as to the exact reasons for separation of P.W.1 from R.W.1. Once it is admitted that P.W.1 is living separately from R.W.1, the burden of proving that she is living separately from R.W.1 for a reasonable cause is on the P.W.1. In support of the same the Petitioner made many allegations regarding the harassment meted out to her at the Respondent’s house during her stay with the Respondent. However, she also admitted that she lived happily for one and half years. Although she alleged that the Respondent did not visit hospital after the 2nd Petitioner was admitted in Hospital for Typhoid fever, P.W.2 admitted that the Respondents were present at the hospital and subsequently she returned back to Respondent’s home. Therefore all the allegations of P.W.1 prior to March, 2014 are not entirely proved. It is admitted by P.W.2 that no complaint was filed against the Respondent and his family with regard to dowry harassment and neither his daughter P.W.1 gave any such complaint. Although, P.W.1 stated in her chief-affidavit that on 19.02.2016 a Complaint was filed against the Respondent by her and the same was registered as Crime No.38/16 no certified copy of the complaint was filed by her and no exhibit was marked in proof of such complaint. The alleged complaint as per P.W.1 pertains to incident on 23.01.2016 when the Respondent and his parents visited P.W.1’s parents house and demanded her signature on divorce papers and pressed her neck and threatened her that they will kill her. Even otherwise the alleged F.I.R in existence relates to incident which occurred in 2016 i.e., two years after P.W.1 started living at her parents house. There are no specific dates mentioned by P.W.1 about the time when she returned to her parents home and the time when she tried to go back to the Respondent’s house with the help of mediators. Apart from admitted facts of P.W.1 that Respondent and herself lived happily for one and half years, she admitted that she does not want to go back to the Respondent even after the Respondent is willing to take her back. P.W.2 also deposed that he is not willing to send the 1st Petitioner to the Respondent’s fold and there were talks through elders by the Respondents but they have not acted or responded to the same. In such circumstances, it can be said that the 1st Petitioner is living separately at her parents house without any reasonable cause and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. Therefore, point No.1 is answered partly in favour of the Respondent and against the 1st Petitioner.

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Index here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Denied | Leave a comment

State of AP Vs Mannem Trivikram Reddy on 28 Jun 2017

Posted on May 3, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

The JMFC at Kadapa held that Legal Terrorism must be stopped.

From Para 16,

From the evidence of prosecution it is clear that except filing of Maintenance case and a case under Domestic Violence Act seeking monetary relief of one crore rupees, the court cannot come to a safe conclusion that there were cruelty on the part of accused for the want of additional dowry as was also observed by Apex court in the same Judgment at paragraph No.20, as these salutary provisions cannot be allowed to be misused by relatives, parents, etc., the glaring reality cannot be ignored that the early trend of false implication with a view to harass and black mail and innocent spouse and his relatives, is fast emerging. It is time to stop this unhealthy trend which results in unnecessary misery and torture to numerous affected persons. Even with regard to the omissions to make reference of demand in 161 Cr.P.C., statement the observations made in para No.21 can be considered. Apart from all that the investigating officer had not examined the relative of accused also as was specifically contemplated under police standing order 537 more specifically in clause (3) (d) and (g).

State of AP Vs Mannem Trivikram Reddy on 28 Jun 2017
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Legal Terrorism State of AP Vs Mannem Trivikram Reddy | Leave a comment

State of AP Vs Pantla Krishna Murthy and Anr on 16 Dec 2022

Posted on January 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A Judicial Magistrate at Vizianagaram passed this Order. Very valid points raised while not finding the accused guilty of the allegations made in the false criminal case.

From Para 23, regarding Dowry givers’ role

Section 3 of Dowry prohibition Act clearly defines the offence as whoever gives or takes Dowry comes under clutches of the Law and punishable. If A1 and A2 were held for demanding Dowry why PW2 father of the PW1 who is also police official well aware of Law has given the Dowry and not taken action against A1 and A2. Instead he alleges he has paid 15,00,000/dowry to A1 and A2. PW2 also comes under the purview of Law and he is also liable for punishment. Here another notion would be taken if it is treated as present made to A1 at the time of marriage which is exemption to this section of law. But the presentations were to be listed and signed by either parties as per mandate of law. That is also not the case here.

Regarding Dowry Allegations:

Prosecution has produced bank statement of A1 dated 7/6/2010 to show his account was deposited by the amounts of Rs 9,66,000/- and Rs 2,00,000/- and got it exhibited through bank manger to prove the amount of Rs 15,00,000/- was given to accused by PW2 before day of the marriage. Here prosecution has not lead any evidence how PW2 paid such huge amount. Whether he obtained loan or he paid from his savings. There might be some document to prove how he raised such huge amount to present the dowry. In the absence of such evidence ExP3 cannot be relied upon. A1 is working in Railway in respectable job and has opportunity to raise such amount even to spent for his marriage expenses. There cannot be a conclusive theory that the entire marriage expenses from both sides would be taken care of the parents of bride. if such is the case they have to produce reliable evidence. The court arrived at the conclusion that whatever the things presented at the time of marriage of PW1 is only presentation though prosecution witnesses has stated that at the time of marriage of PW1 dowry and gold was give to accused. Because if there is demand from accused, PW2 being police official might have initiated action against Accused. PW2 considered at the time of marriage as presentation and presented it without taking action and when marriage tie was strained with misunderstanding between A1 and PW1 and then PW1 and PW2 cannot take stand of dowry subsequently in the year 2016 when marriage took place in the year 2010.

State of AP Vs Pantla Krishna Murthy and Anr on 16 Dec 2022
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Acquitted in IPC 498A IPC 498A - Cruelty Not Proved State of AP Vs Pantla Krishna Murthy and Anr | Leave a comment

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Posted on November 2, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Saket Court, New Delhi passed this order.

From Para 41,

41. In light of the above discussion, the Application U/s 12 PWDV Act filed by the complainant is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be deposited by the complainant in the account of Blind Relief Association. The imposition of cost is in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoers should not get benefits out of frivolous litigations. Needless to say, all interim orders stand canceled.

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165927699/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/sumana-bhasin-vs-neeraj-bhasin-9863

https://menkibaat.in/one-lakh-fine-on-wife-for-filing-fake-domestic-violence-case/

 

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Perjury - Costs Levied or Imprisonment For Perjury Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin | Leave a comment

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Posted on October 25, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Family Court judge at Bandra, Mumbai passed order to initiate perjury proceedings against lying knife.

From Para 16,

16. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must do equity. The fraud and justice cannot dwell together. The justice seeker must step in the Court with clean hands. The dishonest person cannot be entertained by the Court of law. In matrimonial matters persons come with their family problems before the Court and Court makes every possible attempt to find out solution of their problems. In such circumstances, it is the first and foremost responsibility of the party to tell the truth to the Court, so that Court can go to the root of the matter to solve the real dispute. There should not be game of hide and seek when justice is sought from the Court of law. All the Dharmashastras teach us “सतय ं वदं” “Tell the truth”. Foundation of every case must be on true and honest disclosure of facts. No place can be given to lies or falsehood during the course of administration of justice. The person who comes to the Court i.e. house of justice, to seek justice, has to show his bonafides and honesty by making true disclosure of the facts within his knowledge.

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Mr.N Vs Mrs.N Perjury - Approached Court with Unclean Hands Perjury - Initiate Prosecution Perjury Under 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Posted on September 13, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of a Sessions Court in Mumbai held as follows:

From Para 5,

5] Perusal of the application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act filed by the applicant has several references to the alleged domestic violence committed by the respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that he resides separately and not with the appellant or the respondent No. 1. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his impugned order has observed that since the respondent No. 1 never resided with the appellant in any shared household he cannot be considered to be the respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. He, therefore, omitted him from the array of the respondents in the main application.

From Para 6,

6] Such an observation of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate however, is wholly misplaced. It is for the simple reason that the proviso to Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act makes it very clear that an aggrieved wife can also file a complaint against a relative of the husband. The Act nowhere mandates that an aggrieved person can seek relief only against the persons who have shared household with her. Had that been so, it would have been very convenient to cause violence or any other trouble to the aggrieved person through the relatives not sharing the same household and yet remained out of the clutches of the D. V. Act. Rather, holding that any relative of the husband if not sharing or shared the same household cannot be a respondent would amount to giving licence to those relatives to commit violence to the aggrieved person and thereby rendering the very Act meaningless. That just cannot be and certainly was not the intention while enacting the said statute. As observed earlier, there are sufficient references to show that the respondent No. 1 was also a party to the domestic violence committed to the appellant. As such, the proceedings against him was certainly tenable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was obviously wrong in holding that the respondent No. 1 since not shared the household with the appellant could not be a respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. Consequently, the impugned order cannot sustain.

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

A Revision was dismissed by the Bombay High Court here.


Index of DV Cases here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law or Per Incuriam Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors No Shared Household | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older 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
idf Israel Defense Forces @idf ·
13h

Yonatan Samerano was murdered and kidnapped during the Oct. 7 Massacre by an @UNRWA worker.

Yesterday, his body was recovered alongside the bodies of SSGT Shay Levinson, and Ofra Keidar in Gaza.

Where is the world’s outrage?

Reply on Twitter 1937204678606848216 Retweet on Twitter 1937204678606848216 1185 Like on Twitter 1937204678606848216 4398 X 1937204678606848216
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
23h

నరసరావుపేటలో యువత పోరు అంటూ నాటకాలు వేస్తున్న పేటీఎం కుక్కల్ని చితకబాదిన ఏపీ పోలీసులు..👏💪
#Yuvathaporu #Narasaraopet

Reply on Twitter 1937057195713265893 Retweet on Twitter 1937057195713265893 323 Like on Twitter 1937057195713265893 1588 X 1937057195713265893
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
osint613 Open Source Intel @osint613 ·
11h

Trump: “Iran has officially responded to our obliteration of their nuclear facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was ‘set free’ because it was headed in a…

Reply on Twitter 1937238782568464825 Retweet on Twitter 1937238782568464825 125 Like on Twitter 1937238782568464825 996 X 1937238782568464825
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
spectatorindex The Spectator Index @spectatorindex ·
11h

BREAKING: Trump thanks Iran for giving 'early notice' of its 'very weak response'

Reply on Twitter 1937238841561350369 Retweet on Twitter 1937238841561350369 900 Like on Twitter 1937238841561350369 7118 X 1937238841561350369
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 June 22, 2025
  • Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 June 17, 2025
  • V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025 June 16, 2025
  • Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014 June 8, 2025
  • Bilal Ahmad Ganaie Vs Sweety Rashid and Ors on 11 May 2023 June 8, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,683 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,215 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (1,975 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,595 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,417 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,169 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,046 views)
  • State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024 (872 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (798 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (776 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (402)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (372)Landmark Case (368)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (293)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (273)Work-In-Progress Article (216)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (59)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)Legal Terrorism (38)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (716)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (318)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (179)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (106)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (35)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • June 2025 (10)
  • 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

  • BGW (Baghdad) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BGW (Baghdad) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 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 […]
  • NJF (Najaf) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in NJF (Najaf) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 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 […]
  • BSR (Basra) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BSR (Basra) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 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 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 212.57.126.100 | SD June 23, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 51 | First: 2025-06-23 | Last: 2025-06-23
  • 180.178.47.195 | SD June 23, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 120 | First: 2025-05-17 | Last: 2025-06-23
  • 162.248.100.196 | S June 23, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 78 | First: 2025-03-02 | Last: 2025-06-23
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 6072 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel