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 Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification

Bhagya and Ors Vs Jayalakshmi and Ors on 13 Feb 2019

Posted on April 3, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

The Division Bench clarified the legal position on obtaining NOC from an advocate before engaging the services of another advocate while perusing an earlier case law here.

Memo for withdrawal of the appeal is filed on 31-1-2019 signed by the three appellants. The memo filed by the new counsel does not have a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the earlier counsel. On questioning, he places reliance on the Judgment of this Court passed in MFA No.6526 of 2013 on 2-12-2016 (KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED., vs. M.RAJASHEKAR AND OTHERS) and submits that it is not necessary to obtain a No Objection Certificate to file a vakalath. We are unable to accept the submission. Reliance placed by the counsel on para-8 of the Judgment is misconceived. The Division Bench held therein that ‘No Objection Certificate’ is not required only in a situation where the Advocate is discharged by his client in a manner known to law, only then a new counsel can enter vakalath without a ‘No Objection Certificate’. When the earlier counsel still holds a valid vakalath, the question of a new Advocate entering the case cannot be accepted. Therefore, the counsel has misread the aforesaid Judgment.


Bhagya and Ors Vs Jayalakshmi and Ors on 13 Feb 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE KAR 1974], [2019 KCCR 2 1453], [2019 AIR KAR 133], [2019 AIR KANT R 3 50], [2019 ICC 4 31]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26814810/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c8d0f119eff430a1ad75a63

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Bhagya-andamp-Others-Versus-Jayalakshmi-andamp-Others-2019-02-13


Other Judgements on this subject here.

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Bhagya and Ors Vs Jayalakshmi and Ors Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Need 'No Objection Certificate (NOC)' From Advocate Before Engaging new Advocate Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Karnataka Power Distribution Vs M RajaShekar on 2 Dec 2016

Posted on January 31, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court held that (which is wrongly understood by many) once the advocate of a case on record of the Court is discharged, as per procedure established by law (termination letter and communicating the same to advocate), a party has absolute right to engage another advocate and no need of obtaining a separate NOC from the advocate, who was discharged. This was further clarified by a Division Bench here.

From Paras 6 to 9,

6. As could be seen from the observations made in the two decisions extracted above, a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. A party has the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason. However, fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record, though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate.
7. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization. On discharging the advocate, the party has the right to have the case file returned to him from the advocate, and any refusal by the advocate to return the file amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In any proceeding, including civil and criminal, a party has an absolute right to appoint a new Advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. Therefore, it follows that any rule or law imposing restriction on the said right can’t be construed as mandatory. Accordingly, Courts, Tribunals or other authorities shall not ask for ‘no objection’ of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new advocate.
8. As observed in the decisions referred to above, if an Advocate is discharged by his client and if he has any genuine claim against his client relating to the fee payable to him, the appropriate course for him is to return the brief and to agitate his claim in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
9. As stated above, under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. The right is absolute and not conditional. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry on the vakalatnama is overruled. Hereafter, the Registry shall not ask for ‘no objection’ of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new Advocate.

Karnataka Power Distribution Vs M RajaShekar on 2 Dec 2016

Citations : [2016 SCC ONLINE KAR 6470], [2017 ILR KAR 59], [2017 AIR KAR 1], [2017 KCCR 1 383], [2017 AIR KANT R 4 210]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128027421/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5845968353bee765a86aed81


Other Judgements on this subject here.

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision C.V. Sudhindra and Ors. Vs Divine Light School For Blind Karnataka Power Distribution Vs M RajaShekar Need 'No Objection Certificate (NOC)' From Advocate Before Engaging new Advocate R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma | Leave a comment

Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka on 19 Sep 2019

Posted on January 10, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Karnataka directed (forced) the State Government to issue a advisory through DGP of the State regarding implementation of Zero FIR.

Umapathi S Vs State of Karnatak on 19 Sep 2019
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka Zero FIR to be Filed Investigated and Transferred | Leave a comment

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

Posted on December 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court has set aside the dismissal of the discharge petition u/s 227 CrPC against the Petitioners, up on whom vague allegations were made which did not attract the offences alleged in Charge sheet.

From Para 7,

7. I have meticulously gone through the statement of C.W.1-Vedha, because, she has categorically stated about the accident taken place on 25.07.2015 and she actually saw on that day accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a tipper lorry and dashed the Nano car, wherein C.W.1 and her child and parents were there. Due to the said impact, her father and mother died on the spot. C.W.1 and her child sustained injuries. She has also categorically stated that when she questioned her husband as to why he has given complaint as if it is an accident, then, he threatened her with dire consequence of killing her and the child. But, there is no allegation against these petitioners explaining as to how the incident has happened right from the beginning. Except stating that when accused Nos.3 and 4 though informed about the birth of female child, they did not come and see the child because, it is a female child. She has only stated that there was a small quarrel taking place in the family and sometimes, accused Nos.3 and 4 were also telling her to listen to their words, C.W.1 taken advantage of these small incidents in the family to make allegations. Even it has not been stated as to in what manner those small incidents, projected to mentally and physically harass her. Except making a bald and trivial allegation that they were also ill-treating and harassing her, nothing has been given in the statement except stating that they were quarrelling for trivial issues. Therefore, on these factual aspects, she omnibusly states that accused Nos.3 and 4 were also ill-treating and harassing her.

And from Para 9,

9. Framing of charges against the accused persons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. One case cannot be compared with another at all. The nature of the allegations made, strength of those allegations and surrounding circumstances have to be looked into by the Court in each case. In this particular case, till the point of time the incident took place, it appears that no allegations have been made against accused Nos.3 and 4. Though there are certain allegations against accused No.1 i.e., the husband of C.W.1, there is no serious allegations against accused Nos.3 and 4. In the above facts and circumstances, particularly, looking to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed a serious error in ordering to frame charges against these petitioners for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It is apparently materials are lacking against these petitioners. Further, I am of the opinion that the allegations made are omnibus in nature and they are not sufficient to frame charges against accused Nos.3 and 4 even for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to be discharged.

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121615977/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a621de44653d00b3602ce39

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations CrPC 227 - Discharged Non-Reportable Judgement or Order Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer | Leave a comment

Rithvik Balanagraj B and Anr Vs BCI and Ors

Posted on December 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Two law students moved Karnataka High Court challenging BCI, KSLU decision to hold intermediate semester exams. Here is the Petition…

Rithvik Balanagraj B and Ors Vs BCI and Ors Petition

The Last status as on posting this message


Relevant News report: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/two-law-students-petition-karnataka-hc-circulars-bci-kslu-intermediate-semester-exams


Earlier News Report (wherein the PIL was dismissed): https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/law-students-move-karnataka-high-court-challenging-kslu-circular-for-holding-exams-165928

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Rithvik Balanagraj B and Ors Vs BCI and Ors Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 2015

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In regards to the explanation given to section 197 CrPC, Karnataka High Court categorically held as follows,

20. The submission that the sanction is necessary, as the appellants are not facing the charges under the Sections enumerated in the newly inserted Explanation to Section 197 does not commend itself to us. The Memorandum explaining the modifications contained in the Criminal Law Amendment 2013 itself states that the Explanation to Section 197 is proposed to be inserted so as to clarify that no sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant, if the offence relates to crimes against woman. Such a clarification cannot be stretched to mean that the sanction for prosecuting a public servant is a must, if the offence alleged does not relate to a crime against woman.

B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 2015

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90130688/

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner CrPC 197 - Prosecution of Judges and public servants Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020

Posted on October 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court held that issuance of new passport may be barred in sec 6 of Passports Act 1967, but not renewal.

11. A reading of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act indicates that, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if a criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant in India . However, the said provision does not provide for refusing to issue a passport for a person who intends to travel back to India . Hence, reading of this provision clearly indicates that it is applicable only for issuing a fresh passport and not for renewal of passport and this view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ashok Khanna –vs- Central Bureau of Investigation (supra). Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 has held that the Passport Authority can refuse to issue passport or an endorsement for visiting any country but nowhere in the provision it is mentioned that even for renewal of passport, the Authority can refuse to renew the passport.

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors Passports Act Sec 6(2)(f) - Refusal of passports and travel documents etc Right to Travel | Leave a comment

Nagaraj Rao Vs Sushma Rani on 01 Oct 2020

Posted on October 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Course of events in this case at High Court of Karnataka.

  1. Husband files Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR) and Wife makes defamatory statements in her Written Statement (WS)/Counter which she repeats in Examination. Trial Court allows RCR. Trail Court also allows Guardians and Wards Act (GWA) and allows visitation of Husband for the minor girl child. Wife shares the contents of the Counter with third parties.
  2. Husband files Defamation against Wife for sharing defamatory statements made in Counter. Trail Court allows it. 1 Month and 5000/- fine.
  3. Wife files Revision and Sessions Court dismisses it.
  4. Wife files Revision at HC to set aside the punishment given by Trial Court. HC part allows it and sets aside the punishment but enhances the fine to 15000/- to be paid within 60 days, and in default, punishment for 1 months!!!
    • Husband also files Revision at HC to enhance Punishment. Dismissed
Nagaraj Rao Vs Sushma Rani on 01 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Nagaraj Rao Vs Sushma Rani | Leave a comment

Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka on 29 Sep 2020

Posted on September 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The Amendment Act brought by Karnataka Legislature was struck down as Unconstitutional and untravires to Parent Law, NLSIU Act 1986.

This apart, the Court held that the 5% concession to be given to Karnataka students (under the 25% domicile reservation) would tamper with the merit list, and therefore, is not permissible under the ambit of Article 14.

Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka on 29 Sep 2020
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Law or Provision is Alleged as Unconstitutional Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka | Leave a comment

Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Because of the allegation of Dowry giving are made by married women, husbands are resorting to these kind of hyperbolic tricks which fall flat on their face. Instead of hitting at the root cause, peripheral aspects are stroked only to be later quashed like this.

Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013

Citations: [2013 KCCR 4 3137], [2013 AKR 4 454], [2014 ILR KAR 199], [2013 SCC ONLINE KAR 5387], [2013 AIR KANT R 4 45]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56094831e4b01497112656fb

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140258661/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/viral-goda-viral-dhulia-others-v-virag-r-dhulia-another/DDF53

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Mrs-Viral-Goda–Viral-Dhulia-and-Others-Versus-Virag-R-Dhulia-and-Another-2013-07-25


Upon filing SLP before Supreme Court, it was dismissed summarily with the following Order.

Delay condoned.
Heard. We find no merit in the case.
The special leave petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid in favour of respondent no. 2 within eight weeks.

Virag Dhulia Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 14 Feb 2014

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148303036/

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
exsecular

exsecular

Verified account @exsecular ·
24 Oct

Aaj ka gyan ..

Reply on Twitter 2113863679263580543 Retweet on Twitter 2113863679263580543 29 Like on Twitter 2113863679263580543 110 X 2113863679263580543
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
mrhyperreddy

పల్నాడు పెద్దిరెడ్డి

@mrhyperreddy ·
24 Oct

తిలక్ - నువ్వు కాల్ ఇవ్వలేదు
నితీష్ - నువ్వు వచ్చేసేయ్ నేను వచ్చేస్తా ఆరాంసే

తిలక్ - రేయ్ రెండు అని చెప్పురా పోనీ

ఎంత బాగుందో
ఇంటర్నేషనల్ మ్యాచ్ లో తెలుగులో మాట్లాడుకుంటుంటే 😍

Reply on Twitter 2113958622615232589 Retweet on Twitter 2113958622615232589 2213 Like on Twitter 2113958622615232589 17096 X 2113958622615232589
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
drsjaishankar

Dr. S. Jaishankar

Verified account @drsjaishankar ·
23 Oct

Paid a visit to the historic Ateshgah fire temple in Baku.

A symbol of the historical and cultural connect between our two peoples.

🇮🇳 🇦🇿

Reply on Twitter 2113680108695195986 Retweet on Twitter 2113680108695195986 1772 Like on Twitter 2113680108695195986 16252 X 2113680108695195986
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jspbvmnaresh

JSP Naresh

Verified account @jspbvmnaresh ·
24 Oct

ఎప్పుడైనా కానీ మోడీ గారు ముస్లింని ఖతం చేస్తా అన్నాడా లేదు కదా..
అయినా
ఒక్కసారి అయినా మోడీకి ఓటు వేస్తారా ముస్లింలు. అలాంటిది రాహుల్ గాంధీ హిందువులని హిందూ వాదులని దేశం నుంచి తరిమియాలని 100 సార్లు అన్నారు అయినా హిందువులు వాడికి ఓట్లు వేస్తున్నారు.వాడి చెప్పులు నాకుతూ

Reply on Twitter 2113909101835243981 Retweet on Twitter 2113909101835243981 404 Like on Twitter 2113909101835243981 1073 X 2113909101835243981

Recent Posts

  • Thangam Venkatesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors on 23 Oct 2026 October 29, 2026
  • Mukul Mittal Vs Sr. Superintendent at RPO Delhi on 02 Feb 2026 October 27, 2026
  • Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and Anr on 19 Dec 2025 October 27, 2026
  • Orders on Interim Maintenance Applications under various laws October 24, 2026
  • Rama Vs Sandeep Purkayastha and Anr on 01 May 2025 October 24, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,250 views)
  • Application for Exemption from Personal Appearance During Investigation – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,144 views)
  • Representation for Deletion of Name from FIR – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (966 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (897 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Criminal Writ Petition Before a High Court (839 views)
  • Dr. Garima Dubey and Ors Vs Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey on 21 Apr 2026 - Judgement Summary (784 views)
  • Surety Affidavit Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template (781 views)
  • Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy (731 views)
  • Cross-Examination Strategy in 498A Trials – Defence Tactics That Can Change the Outcome (689 views)
  • Reducing Maintenance – Legal Grounds and Strategy (664 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (453)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (437)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (391)Landmark Case (391)1-Judge Bench Decision (385)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (304)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (72)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (63)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (773)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (193)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (169)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (96)Legal Procedure/Tool (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (72)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (60)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (55)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (45)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • Aman Kumar on Case Lifecycle Explorer – BNS s.85, DV Act and Maintenance
  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation

Archives of SoK

  • October 2026 (19)
  • September 2026 (13)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-11-06 November 6, 2026
    Oct 28, 18:09 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter on 2026-11-06 between 06:00 and 14:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users in the affected region. For PNI / CNI customers […]
    Cloudflare Status

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

  • 34.75.255.79 | S October 28, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4 | First: 2026-10-28 | Last: 2026-10-28
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 514 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel