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 Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification

Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022

Posted on May 31 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

(57) In our opinion, non-supply of a copy of the LOC to the subject of the LOC at the time the subject is stopped at the airport for travel abroad, non-supply of reasons for issuing LOC , and absence of a post decisional hearing to the subject of the LOC, is not just, fair and reasonable procedure. It is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India.

Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://legiteye.com/in-cwp-5492-2022-om-punj-hc-non-supply-of-copy-of-look-out-circular-to-person-travelling-abroad-is-not-fair-and-reasonable-procedure-holds-ph-hc-justices-ramachandra-rao-harminder-singh-madaa/

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Look Out Circular Notices Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors Right to Travel | Leave a comment

Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021

Posted on April 4 by ShadesOfKnife

A short judgment from a single judge says as follows (Picking exact same works from here):

Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents as the petitioners are in live-in-relationship against the wishes of the private respondents.
Perusal of file shows that petitioner No.1 Harpreet Kaur aged about 23 years is legally wedded wife of respondent No.4 Gurjant Singh, and without seeking divorce from her spouse she is living a lustful and adulterous life with petitioner No.2. Once petitioner No.1 is a married woman being wife of respondent No.4-Gurjant Singh, the act of petitioners particularly petitioner No.2 may constitute an offence under Sections 494/495 IPC. Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase “live-in-relationship” or “relationship” in the nature of marriage.
Petitioners have no legal right for protection on the facts of the present case inasmuch as the protection as being asked may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 IPC. This petition has been filed just to obtain a seal of this Court on their so called live-in-relationship. On the face of it, the representation (Annexure P-3) appears to be a fake document as no receipt or diary number of the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala is given or attached.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.

Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021
Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act 17 - Punishment of Bigamy HM Act 5 - Conditions for a Hindu Marriage IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law Non-Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021

Posted on December 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021
Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Leave a comment

Harkanwalpreet Singh Vs Harshpreet Kaur on 17 Jan 2014

Posted on July 21, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division declared a null and void marriage, a null and void marriage. hehehe. Check the list of events/dates…

  • a divorce petition between the respondent-Harshpreet Kaur and said Varinder Singh Thandi was filed on 23.12.2006
  • the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.2.2007
  • a divorce petition was pending between the respondent-Harshpreet Kaur and said Varinder Singh Thandi was decided on 18.1.2010
  • the copy of the judgment dated 18.1.2010 (Ex.P-3) and copy of decree sheet dated 18.1.2010 (Ex.P-4) whereby divorce was granted to the respondent in respect of her earlier marriage
  • she was in India as she arrived on 01.1.2012
  • husband came to know that the respondent-Harshpreet Kaur was already married with one Varinder Singh Thandi in June, 2012
  • there was no cohabitation between the parties after June, 2012
  • thereafter she left for USA on 05.10.2012.
  • She had again come to India on 10.1.2014 and was residing with her parents.

Finally,

In the facts and circumstances, the respondent has admitted the case of the appellant. It is accepted by her that she had a spouse living at the time of her marriage with the appellant. This indeed contravenes Section 5(i) of the Act. As such merely because they have been married for a considerable time, it cannot per se be said that they are acting in collusion with each other. It is better if the marriage is declared null and void on the basis of the accepted position rather than making the parties go through a protracted litigative process. Besides, it is the statutory provision of Section 5(i) of the Act, which has been infringed and there is no estoppel against a statute. Therefore, in view of the admission on the part of the respondent that she had a spouse living at the time when her marriage was solemnized with the appellant-Harkanwalpreet Singh, we find no reason, why the marriage between the parties should not be declared void as it contravenes Section 5(i) of the Act.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is set aside and the marriage between the parties is declared void. There shall be no order as to costs.

Harkanwalpreet Singh Vs Harshpreet Kaur on 17 Jan 2014

Citations : [2015 DMC P&H 1 225], [2014 AIR P&H 60], [2014 SCC ONLINE P&H 1049]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120220289/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56099ebae4b01497113dccfa

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Harkanwalpreet Singh Vs Harshpreet Kaur HM Act 11 - Void marriages | Leave a comment

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 05 Sep 2011

Posted on June 7, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on a previous single judge decision, Punjab High Court held as follows,

As per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the period of limitation shall be one year if the offence is punishable with punishment for a term not exceeding one year. The punishment for an offence under Section 182 IPC is an imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to 1,000/- rupees or with both. Thus, the calendra could have been presented within one year from the date when the investigating agency had concluded that the averments in the complaint were false. However, in the present case the s has been presented after the period of limitation as envisaged under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 05 Sep 2011

Citations:

Other Sources:

 

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation IPC 182 - False information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr | Leave a comment

Paramjit Kumar Saroya Vs Union of India and Anr on 28 May 2014

Posted on March 21, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Sitting on a Division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that, Appeals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 can be filed by any of the affected parties.

We may add at this stage that in order to have assistance to this Court in view of the complexity in the matter involved, we considered it appropriate not only for the counsels to assist us, but to appoint Amicus Curiae to have dispassionate view of the matter. We, thus, appointed Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate as the Amicus Curiae to be assisted by Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate. They have done a comprehensive research on various aspects of the matter and this includes the Parliamentary debates when the Bill for enactment of the said Act was introduced. A perusal of these debates reflect that therehas been no debate qua Section 16(1) of the said Act, nor has any intent been reflected to exclude the right of appeal to persons other than thesenior citizens or parents, unlike the debate on Section 17 of the said Act where the right of legal representation has been excluded.

And here is the conclusion.

We are thus of the view that Section 16(1) of the said Act is valid, but must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties.

Paramjit Kumar Saroya Vs Union of India and Anr on 28 May 2014

Citations : [2014 AIR P&H 121], [2014 SCC ONLINE P&H 10864]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156882703/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609a051e4b01497113e6023

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 MWPSC Act 2007 Sec 16 - Appeals Paramjit Kumar Saroya Vs Union of India and Anr PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Rakesh Kumar Singla Vs Union of India on 14 Jan 2021

Posted on January 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Punjab High Court granted Regular Bail on the following basis:

  1. the self inculpatory statement given to police cannot be relied upon
  2. no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is available at the present moment to authenticate the said messages
  3. The investigation in the matter is complete and the challan stands presented and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars.
Rakesh Kumar Singla Vs Union of India on 14 Jan 2021
Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal Evidence Act 65B - Admissibility of electronic records Rakesh Kumar Singla Vs Union of India Regular Bail Orders u/s 437 | Leave a comment

Nirmal Singh and Ors Vs Tarsem Singh and Ors on 01 May 2014

Posted on January 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge bench of Punjab High Court held as follows:

The High Court should not be stressed-out to deal with such a combined application compressed into one impugned order needlessly to unravel causing sheer wastage of its precious time in trying to separate what was so casually and mindlessly mixed-up in a cocktail by virtue of bad advice given by some trial lawyer to his client clubbing two disparate legal elements in a portmanteau application claiming amendment in pleadings and at the same time, in the same papers, seeking to introduce third parties in the pending litigation. Every minute of the High Court’s time squandered involves colossal expenditure which is incapable of calculation and therefore recompense. The reward of justice is none other than justice and time consumed in trying to meet it is alone its justification as an end to the means. The time required today for deciding cases of other litigants waiting desperately in the courtroom for their cause to be taken up and decided stands reduced. Poor legal advice given to a client may result in paralyzing many cases for years together causing incalculable injury to just causes needing prompt attention. But bad legal advice tendered leading to filing of interlocutory applications is a judicially unacceptable legal principle or ground itself for generosity in interference. This cannot operate as an exemption or a concession grantable to a litigant complaining that he has suffered because of ill advice to rescue an unsuspecting litigant from a predicament he may face. It has become almost a daily feature in court to wriggle out of the jamb to readily blame counsel without batting an eyelid and accept relief. If the Judge is expected to do his job so is the lawyer expected to assist the Court to the best of his ability. There is a presumption in law that a lawyer knows the law but there is no absolute presumption that a judge should know law. A judge is only called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him.
But the bane is that the trial court unfortunately is not empowered to exercise summary jurisdiction of dismissal of misconceived, vexatious, frivolous, and mala fide applications designed only to obstruct the sound rhythm of a suit to achieve its target milestones within a reasonable time and bring it to fruition. Such power should deservedly be conferred on subordinate judges to deliver justice at the doorstep in limine without compromising the quality of justice delivered. But this is for Parliament to remedy and devise ways and means to achieve removal of obstructions designed to impede the life of a suit or wilt its many leaves.
Said Judge Learned Hand: “Thou shall not ration justice”
But time and energy spent in doing justice can be rationed. It can be rationalized to show better results. The trial courts can contribute in a large measure to this end by finding workable solutions thinking on their feet to do summary justice, a small example of what this case represents. The predecessor trial Judge should have returned the joint application in 2010 itself from the dais to its owner and saved valuable time of the court. He should have killed the weed before it grew. But now that has to be uprooted.
For the variety of reasons recorded above, I find no cogent ground to support the impugned order dated April 4, 2013 or to sustain it and to the contrary I think it is eminently fit to be set aside to avoid a failure of justice. It is accordingly so ordered. The matter is remitted back to the trial Judge for a re-consideration. The respondent/plaintiff is left free to file two separate applications, one under Order 6 Rule 17 and one under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC within a fortnight from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The defendants would file replies thereto within the next fortnight. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge would take up both the applications separately and proceed to dispose them of on merits after hearing the parties after following the rule “costs must follow the event” to its true import and meaning to compensate the aggrieved litigant of the precious time lost in what could have been resolved without any prolonged agony.

Nirmal Singh and Ors Vs Tarsem Singh and Ors on 01 May 2014

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.legitquest.com/case/nirmal-singh-and-others-v-tarsem-singh-and-others/1838C4

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Fine For Delay Tactics Judiciary Antics Nirmal Singh and Ors Vs Tarsem Singh and Ors | Leave a comment

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr on 14 May 2020

Posted on January 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court held that the alleged insult happened not in public view but over a phone call, hence FIR and Charge framing is quashed

Therefore, in view of the above, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of SC & ST Act.
Moreover, the basic ingredients of the offence in the FIR are that there must be intentional insult, secondly the insult must be done in a public place within public view, which is not in the present case. Thus, the essential ingredients which must be fulfilled, are not found in the present case. Since these are the penal provisions, the same are to be given a strict construction and if any of the ingredients are found lacking, it would not constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act.
Since no offence under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act is found to be made out, the offence under Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, which stemmed out of the alleged offence under Section 3 of the SC and ST Act, is also not made out.

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr on 14 May 2020
Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 – FIR Quashed CrPC 482 – Framing Of Charge Quashed Misuse of SC-ST Act Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr SC and ST Act | Leave a comment

Shiv Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 05 Nov 2020

Posted on November 5, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Punjab and Haryana has taken the arrogant advocate to the ride enhancing the costs from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, on his invitation. LOL

From Para 11,

11. No doubt, merely because civil suits are pending would not mean that simultaneous criminal proceedings cannot be instituted on the same cause of action. Provided of course, any criminal case is made out. Prima facie, the lis herein seems to be of civil in nature and institution of the criminal proceedings is being sought for collateral pressure and for settling private scores/gains. Be that as it may, it is for the appropriate court to look into the same, in accordance with law.

Legal options for getting a Criminal FIR registered, from Para 12,

12. In my opinion, the petitioner ought to have first approached the trial Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for redressal of his grievance, if any, before directly approaching this Court. Section 156 (3) empowers aMagistrate to ensure proper investigation. Ordinarily, in case of a grievance arising out of non registration of an FIR, first remedy is to approach theSuperintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or any other competent police officer per Section 36 Cr.P.C. However, even if thereafter,grievance is unmitigated, one can take judicial recourse by approaching a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Still, thereafter, an aggrieved partyhas a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Reference may be had to Apex Court judgment in “Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and others”.

NOTE: First complaint at nearest police station u/s 154(1) CrPC, then escalation to SP/SSP/CP u/s 154(3) CrPC, then complaint to Jurisdictional Magistrate u/s 156(3) CrPC and then filing a criminal complaint u/s 200 CrPC.

Then rubbing the saw-dust on the wound of the losing party, High Court held as follows while levying costs,

13. The other relief qua dissolution of trust and/or induct/appoint the petitioner as its Secretary sought herein being civil in nature, instant petition qua the same is an abuse of the court process. In any case, conduct of the petitioner for indulging in subtle concealment, as aforesaid, does not inspire
any confidence so as to exercise any jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in Covid-19 fund created by U.T. Administration, Chandigarh. Liberty is though granted to approach trial court, as already observed herein above.
14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner very rowdily exuberates that paying costs is not an issue and he is even ready to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards the same. He also boisterously claims that he has been instrumental in making many a judges and how can his arguments/contentions,therefore, be rejected by this court to dismiss the instant petition. To say the least, the tone, tenor, manner and conduct of the learned counsel for petitioner leaves a lot to desire. Yet, taking a lenient view thereof, this court rather prefers a self-restraint from taking any further action. However, on the invitation of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cost imposed is enhanced to Rs.1 lac.

 

Shiv Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 05 Nov 2020
Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Advocate Antics Avoid Multiplicity Of Litigation Dismissed with Costs Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass Perjury - Approached Court with Unclean Hands Shiv Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Ors | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration on 20 Jun 2022 July 1, 2022
  • Suprit Ishwar Divate Vs State of Karnataka on 10 Jun 2022 June 30, 2022
  • PIL – Implement the Statutory Time limit of 60 days to Dispose of a Domestic Violence case as prescribed under Sec 12(5) of the Act June 30, 2022
  • Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal on 22 Jun 2022 June 29, 2022
  • Shivanand Gurannavar Vs Basavva on 17 Feb 2022 June 28, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (1,508 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,466 views)
  • Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022 (830 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (803 views)
  • Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022 (774 views)
  • Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (684 views)
  • Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (662 views)
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (560 views)
  • MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021 (461 views)
  • Mukesh Bansal Vs State of UP and Anr on 13 Jun 2022 (440 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (310)Reportable Judgement or Order (297)Landmark Case (294)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (223)Work-In-Progress Article (212)Catena of Landmark Judgments (193)1-Judge Bench Decision (110)Sandeep Pamarati (85)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (75)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (73)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions (37)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)Advocate Antics (33)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (32)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (603)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (295)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (152)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (104)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (88)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (62)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (49)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (39)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (35)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (32)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (15)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • July 2022 (1)
  • June 2022 (28)
  • 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 (29)
  • 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 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • 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 (102)
  • 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
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Increased HTTP 500 Errors in the Dashboard July 2, 2022
    Jul 2, 12:54 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jul 2, 12:39 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is investigating an increased level of HTTP 500 errors in the dashboard. We are working to analyse and mitigate this problem. More updates to follow shortly.
  • Origin performance issues in WAW (Warsaw, Poland) region July 1, 2022
    Jul 1, 12:30 UTCResolved - Cloudflare observed origin performance issues in WAW (Warsaw, Poland) region.This is now resolved and customers shall expect no further impact.
  • Increased HTTP 522 Errors July 1, 2022
    Jul 1, 00:30 UTCResolved - Cloudflare experienced Network connectivity issues in the Chicago region between 00:30 and 00:38 UTC on 07/01. During this time, customers may have experienced 522 errors.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.43.141.178 | SD July 1, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 931 | First: 2019-07-04 | Last: 2022-07-01
  • 134.122.252.108 | S July 1, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 7 | First: 2022-06-08 | Last: 2022-07-01
  • 103.18.100.245 | SD July 1, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 11,485 | First: 2022-04-04 | Last: 2022-07-01
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 642 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel