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 Madras Judgment or Order or Notification

S.G.M.Shaa @ Sheik Mohammed Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 10 Sep 2020

Posted on January 2, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the happy tale of the elephant ‘Lalitha’ adjudged by the Madras High Court.

From Paras 12 and 13

12.Lalitha has been accustomed to a certain lifestyle all these years. She changed hands from 1988 to 2000. But she has been in the custody of the petitioner for the last twenty years. She has been attending religious functions. She is being fed well. She is in good health. In fact, the veterinarians appointed by the department have certified that she is being maintained properly by the petitioner. Removing her from the petitioner’s custody is sure to inflict a deep psychological wound on her. It is certainly not in her best interests. Applying the yardstick of what is good for Lalitha, I have to hold that the present arrangement should continue. Lalitha should continue to be with the petitioner and participate in the religious functions hosted in
the region.
13.Lalitha’s usual place of stay is a coconut groove spread over one and half acres. There is a R.O Plant. It is owned by Thiru.Pothiraj. He appeared before me and gave in writing that the land will not be sold or encumbered during the lifetime of Lalitha. She also gets copious amounts of water to drink and to bathe. The ambience is highly conducive.

S.G.M.Shaa @ Sheik Mohammed Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 10 Sep 2020
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Animal's Rights S.G.M.Shaa @ Sheik Mohammed Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests | Leave a comment

AP Suryakrasam Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors

Posted on November 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Madras observed that, punishment for corrupt practices should be increased to include death sentence also. Wonderful step!

From Para 11,

11. Though the learned Advocate General has referred to about the prevailing Act, namely, the Prevention of Corruption Act and its procedures, the menace of corruption has not come down. Prevention of Corruption Act is a Central Act, enacted by the Central Government as early as in the year 1947, followed by several amendments, with the latest amendment in the year 2018, giving elaborate procedures to be followed along with punishment and penalties. People are compelled to accept corruption as normal one. Corruption has become deep rooted and has spread like Cancer. Every day, it is reported in the media that many officials are caught red handed, while taking bribes. Hence, the punishment needs to be enhanced. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there should be a re-visit and the Act should be strengthened and stringent penalties should be imposed to curb the menace of corruption. The Central Government may consider imposing punishment, such as, “hanging” or “death penalty”, for corrupt practices or for demanding and accepting bribes, like in China, North Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and Morocco. Hence, this Court suo-motu impleads,
i) the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, North Block, New Delhi;
ii) the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi; and
iii) the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Union of India, Parliament House, New Delhi
as party respondents / respondents 5 to 7 to this proceedings.

AP Suryakrasam Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors on 02 Nov 2020

 

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged AP Suryakrasam Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors Corrupt Practices Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

S.Sridhar Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 04 Nov 2020

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Fisheries Department grabbed the land of Temple and run profit-making business. Temple Management committee fought back and won their lands back. At the end, Madras High Court passed these directions, to be complied within 6 months.

Therefore, this Court, in the interests of the subject temples, deems it fit and appropriate to issue the following directions:
(i)The Commissioner, HR&CE Dept., Chennai, shall initiate appropriate action to retrieve the subject lands, remove all the encroachments, if any, and maintain the same with utmost care and for beneficial interests of the subject temples.
(ii)It is made clear that the lands belonging to the subject temples shall not be alienated or leased or encumbered illegally and against the interests of such temples.
(iii)The HR&CE Dept. shall have the administration and entire control over the subject lands and shall deal with the same in accordance with law.
(iv)The HR&CE Dept. shall take steps to start construction by putting compound wall to secure and safety of the subject lands. Except temple related purposes, the lands shall not be used for any other purposes.
(v)Except the HR&CE Dept., no other private individuals / trustees shall claim any right over the lands possessed and enjoyed by the subject temples.
(vi)The Officer in-charge shall not permit any unauthorised shop / construction inside the temples’ premises.
(vii)The Officer in-charge shall ensure the unrestricted freedom of worship by the devotees to the subject temples.
(viii)The Officer authorised by the Commissioner, HR&CE Dept., shall maintain proper register with respect to the financial aspects of the subject temples and its properties and file the same before the authority concerned in regular intervals. If he/she fails to discharge his/her duties assigned, he/she is personally liable for such lapses and appropriate departmental action be taken against him/her.
(ix)The Commissioner, HR&CE Dept., shall order appropriate enquiry forthwith related to the missing documents and files connected to the respective temples and its properties and initiate action against erring officials responsible for the same.
(x)The Government shall provide necessary assistance to the HR&CE Dept., for proper maintenance and protection of the subject temples and its properties.

S.Sridhar Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 04 Nov 2020
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged S.Sridhar Vs State of Tamil Nadu | Leave a comment

Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited on 25 September 2015

Posted on August 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a good judgment from Madras High Court which held that, a Magistrate can dispense with appearance of accused in a criminal case on first appearance itself, if accused is represented by an Advocate and supported by reasonable excuse.

Beautiful articulation of fact situation on the ground

From Para 15,

15. However, this Court is much concerned if the counsel who is permitted to represent the petitioners/accused is absent on the ground of boycott. In such circumstances, the Court below is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Persons belonging to the legal profession are concededly the elite of the society. They have always been in the vanguard of progress and development of not only law but the polity as a whole. Citizenry looks at them with hope and expectations for traversing on the new paths and virgin fields to be marched on by the society. The profession by and large, till date has undoubtedly performed its duties and obligations and has never hesitated to shoulder its responsibilities in larger interests of mankind. The lawyers, who have been acknowledged as being sober, task-oriented, professionally-responsible stratum of the population, are further obliged to utilise their skills for socio-political modernisation of the country. The lawyers are a force for the preservance and strengthening of constitutional government as they are guardians of the modern legal system. But now-a-days, unfortunately, strikes, boycott calls and even unruly are becoming a frequent spectacles and boycotting the Courts by Advocates has come a regular feature in this state and almost throughout a year, one section or the other of the members of the Bar abstain from Courts and thereby making this Chartered High Court into shattered position. No Advocate has a right to abstain from Court without first returning the briefs to his clients and refunding the fees received from them. It is well known that several clients are paying through their nose by borrowing heavily to their advocates and it is a matter of life and death for them. Advocates who are boycotting the Courts for one cause of so, should not ignore the fact that there have been several causes before the Courts pending for disposal and their act of boycotting would lead to a travesty of justice and destroy the basic democracy, which would tantamount to failure of administration of justice. Failure of a lawyer to attend to his case in Court would not only be breach of contract and breach of trust, but also professional misconduct.

In such circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to make the following:
i) No advocate has right to stall the court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike or to boycott the courts or even boycott any particular court. With the strike by the lawyers, the process of court intended to secure justice is obstructed which is unwarranted under the provisions of the Advocates Act.
ii) It is always open to the litigants to claim damages and also to move the Consumer forum for appropriate compensation and for damages that had caused to them by theirs Advocates by not representing the matters in Courts;
ii) No Advocate shall be permitted to represent the matter without robes (dress-code) on boycott day;
iii) The Courts below shall record the non-apperance of the Advocates due to boycott in the listed case proceedings and proceed with the matters on merits;
iv) After recording such non-apperance of the Advocates, the Courts below shall report the same to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action and it would facilitate the litigants to pursue the matter with the Bar Council of India.
The Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to all the subordinate Courts dealing with civil and criminal matters.

Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited on 25 September 2015

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117608503/

 

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 205 – Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd and Ors | Leave a comment

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926

Posted on January 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment by old Madras High Court, it was held that the accusations made in a complaint to Magistrate do NOT have absolute privilege and only have qualified privilege as provided under section 499 of IPC. Such accusations are liable for defamation if NOT protected by exception 8.

Indian Law Review version (Original):

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 ILR

Indiankanoon Version:

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926

Citations: [49 Mad. 728], [A. I. R. (18) 1926 Mad. 906], [1926 (27) Cri LJ 1026], [AIR 1926 Mad 906], [(1926) 51 MLJ 112],

Indiankanoon.org or ILR link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1159106/ or http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/21403


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


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

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Absolute Privilege Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal

Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November 1965

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Madras High Court held that,

It is clear from what I have stated that the decision is hardly applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision refers to a publication in a paper and it should be proved that the accused was responsible for the publication. But in this case, the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was  admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter.

Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965

Citations: [AIR 1966 Mad 363], [1966 CriLJ 1149], [1966 MLJ 1 547], [1965 SCC ONLINE MAD 248], [1966 MAD LJ 1 547],

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735036/


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


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

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal

Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

No Shared household, DVC is not maintainable.

Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017

Citation: [2017 (2) LW (Crl.) 399]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9488656/


The index page is here.

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged No Shared Household Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha

G.Ramesh Babu vs Radhika on 19 December, 2018

Posted on April 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another judgment from Madras High Court, wherein a false DV case on parents was quashed due to generic and non-specific allegation.

G.Ramesh Babu Vs Radhika on 19 December, 2018

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11203719/


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

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged G.Ramesh Babu vs Radhika PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed | Leave a comment

Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013

Posted on March 31, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

The cunning knife produced a forged passport and husband exposed her with a RTI response from Passport Authority. And the clever police denied to file a FIR for the forgery complaint!!

Hon’ble Madras High Court ordered the police to file FIR and investigate the case in accordance with law. Awesome !!!

Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013

Citations:

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163886641/


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

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police Perjury - Approached Court with Unclean Hands Perjury - Forged Evidence or False Statements on Oath or False Affidavit Submitted Perjury Under 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

Posted on January 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Lying knife had the audacity to file criminal and DV cases, after the husband obtained ex parte divorce decree. Both are quashed as improbable to believe cases. Despite this, husband offered to pay 2 Crore rupees to lying knife.

As always, cases are quashed but no malicious prosecution proceedings were initiated by Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

 

Posted in High Court of Madras 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 482 – Quashed Due to Out-Of-Court Settlement Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint IPC 406 - Not Made Out M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass | 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
maxwellpainn 🇬🇧💥𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝕱𝖔𝖗 𝕭𝖗𝖎𝖙𝖆𝖎𝖓💥🇦🇺 @maxwellpainn ·
26 Jun

The retardation is strong with Islam.

Reply on Twitter 2070547983746163147 Retweet on Twitter 2070547983746163147 1767 Like on Twitter 2070547983746163147 16742 X 2070547983746163147
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
iloveindia_007 I Love India✌ @iloveindia_007 ·
26 Jun

బాలకృష్ణ క్యాన్సర్ ఆసుపత్రికి 21 ఎకరాల అవసరమా అని రాజకీయ విమర్శలు చేసే వారి కోసమే ఈ వీడియో

రెండు తెలుగు రాష్ట్రాల్లోనే కాదు దేశం నలుమూలల నుంచి ఈరోజు హైదరాబాద్ బసవతారకం ఆసుపత్రికి వస్తున్నారు కిక్కిరిసిపోయి ఉంటుంది భవిష్యత్తు అవసరాలను దృష్టిలో ఉంచుకునే ఇప్పుడు 21 ఎకరాల

Reply on Twitter 2070508278401085676 Retweet on Twitter 2070508278401085676 127 Like on Twitter 2070508278401085676 473 X 2070508278401085676
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ntvtelugulive NTV Telugu @ntvtelugulive ·
15h

ఒక తండ్రికి వచ్చిన చివరి ఫోన్ కాల్..! Is Human Life Cheap in India..?

#HumanLife #India #NTVTelugu

Reply on Twitter 2070858183258566910 Retweet on Twitter 2070858183258566910 1 Like on Twitter 2070858183258566910 3 X 2070858183258566910
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
stringreveals Stringg @stringreveals ·
24h

A thought-provoking film on one of the biggest health concerns facing India today.

It brings attention to the dangerous use of pesticides in the food we consume every day.

A relevant subject that deserves nationwide discussion. A must-watch.

#TheIndiaStory #TeaserOut

Reply on Twitter 2070731559737692624 Retweet on Twitter 2070731559737692624 163 Like on Twitter 2070731559737692624 519 X 2070731559737692624
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Is Bigamy (under sections 494, 495 IPC and now Section 82 BNS) a Cognizable and non-bailable offence, as much as it applies to State of Andhra Pradesh? June 27, 2026
  • Advocates Act 1961 Section 18 – Transfer of name from one State roll to another June 27, 2026
  • Are BCI and State Bar Councils Statutorily empowered to Levy Fees for Transfer of Enrollment? June 27, 2026
  • Petition Prayers Are Not Final Outcomes – Understanding Legal Strategy Before Making Decisions June 27, 2026
  • RS Tamilvendan Vs The Secretary and Ors on 21 May 2026 June 25, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,961 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,503 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,391 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,850 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,227 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (2,024 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,959 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,799 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,731 views)
  • Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (1,560 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (415)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 (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)Legal Terrorism (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 (329)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 (80)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)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 (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of 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 (17)
  • 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

  • Errors when uploading Custom Certificates June 26, 2026
    Jun 26, 15:00 UTC Resolved - This incident has been resolved. Jun 26, 12:33 UTC Investigating - Cloudflare is investigating 500/2000 errors when customers attempt to upload a new custom certificate. Custom certificates already in production remain unaffected and are operating normally.
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 81.90.29.194 | S June 27, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 65 | First: 2026-06-20 | Last: 2026-06-27
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 2516 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel