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: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

Gaytri Bajaj Vs Jiten Bhalla on 5 Oct 2012

Posted on January 18, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

After Delhi High Court denied to set aside the MCD granted by ADJ Court in 2008, the knife tried to grab the children’s custody. Supreme Court had to take the feedback of minor girl children and deny the same to the Petitioner-mother (no more why due to MCD attaining finality, long back)

Gaytri Bajaj Vs Jiten Bhalla on 5 Oct 2012

Citations : [2012 SCC 12 471], [2012 DMC SC 1 19], [2012 AIR SC 6102], [2012 SLT 8 6], [2012 ALLMR SC 6 438], [2012 CCC SC 4 663], [2013 AIR SC 102], [2012 SCALE 10 55], [2012 AIOL 448], [2013 SCC CIV 2 425], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 833], [2012 AIC 119 55], [2012 ALR 95 597], [2012 KLJ 4 323], [2013 LW 1 886], [2013 CHN 1 9], [2012 RCR CIVIL 4 603], [2013 CDR SC 2 348], [2012 PLJR 4 246], [2012 MLJ 7 887], [2013 OLR SC 1 50], [2012 AWC SC 6 6396], [2013 CLT SC 115 509], [2012 ALT SC 6 58], [2012 SCR 8 1142], [2012 JT SC 10 139], [2012 AIR SCW 6102], [2013 ALD SC 1 127], [2013 SCR 1 116]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119141271/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af16e4b01497114158f0

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/gayatri-bajaj-versus-jiten-bhalla

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Child Custody Given to Father Gaytri Bajaj Vs Jiten Bhalla | Leave a comment

Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003

Posted on January 17, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court talks as follows regarding Mental Cruelty:

The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that leveling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.

Precisely,

As to what constitute the required mental cruelty for purposes of the said provision, in our view, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct, but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home. If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the Courts perhaps need consider the further question as to whether their continuance or persistence over a period time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be a so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonable conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer. A conscious and deliberate statement leveled with pungency and that too placed on record, through the written statement, cannot so lightly be ignored or brushed aside, to be of no consequence merely because it came to be removed from the record only.

 

Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003

Citations : [2003 SCC 6 334], [2003 ALLMR SC 3 777], [2003 AIR SC 2530], [2003 SUPREME 3 416], [2003 AIR SC 2462], [2003 SCALE 4 134], [2004 BOMCR SC 2 384], [2003 ALD SC 3 124], [2003 AWC SC 3 2101], [2003 BLJR 3 1658], [2003 DMC SC 1 685], [2003 JCR SC 3 1], [2003 JT SC 4 85], [2003 LW 4 609], [2003 MLJ SC 3 115], [2003 PLJR 2 200], [2003 SCR 3 607], [2003 UC 2 1211], [2003 UJ 2 947], [2003 AIR SCW 2530]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1228342/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ade1e4b01497114126d8

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/vijay-kumar-ramachandra-bhate-vs-neela-vijay-kumar-bhate

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Character Assassination in Pleadings or Sworn Statements is Mental Cruelty Divorce Set Aside HM Act - Mental Cruelty Proved Landmark Case Mental Cruelty Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate | Leave a comment

Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani and Anr on 07 Apr 1978

Posted on January 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani and Anr on 07 Apr 1978

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1938988/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcce4b014971140d5d5

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Article 20(3) - Right to Remain Silent Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 160 - Police officer’s Power to require Attendance of Witnesses CrPC 161 - Examination of Witnesses By Police Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan on 14 Nov 2018

Posted on January 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court says,

9. No explanation is forthcoming from the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to when he parted the company of the victim. Also, no explanation is there as to what happened after getting the chocolates for the victim. The silence on the part of the accused, in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference against the accused.

Circumstantial Evidence…

10. We find that there is ample material against the accused to convict him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. All the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stand proved so as to complete the chain of circumstances in respect of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Trial Court and the High Court are, on facts, justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. However, we are unable to find reliable material against the accused for the offences under Section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.

Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan on 14 Nov 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45763796/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/prahlad-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-40094

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Circumstantial Evidence - Suspicion cannot take the place of proof CrPC 313 - Power to examine the accused Death Penalty Commuted to Life Imprisonment Evidence Act 114A - Adverse Inference Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan Right to Remain Silent | Leave a comment

State of Punjab Vs Jagdev Singh Talwandi on 16 Dec 1983

Posted on January 14, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A 5-judge Constitutional bench of Supreme Court deprecated the “practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment“.

We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the order, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that a detenu be released from detention. If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment.
It may be thought that such orders are passed by this Court and therefore there is no reason why the High Courts should not do the same. We would like to point out respectfully that the orders passed by this Court are final and no appeal lies against them. The Supreme Court is the final Court in thehierarchy of our courts. Besides, orders without a reasoned judgment are passed by this Court very rarely, under exceptional circumstances. Orders passed by the High Court are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and other provisions of theconcerned statutes. We thought it necessary to make these observations in order that a practice which is not very desirable and which achieves no useful purpose may not grow out of its present
infancy.

State of Punjab Vs Jagdev Singh Talwandi on 16 Dec 1983

Indiankanoon version:

State of Punjab Vs Jagdev Singh Talwandi on 16 Dec 1983 (Indiankanoon)

Casemine version:

State of Punjab Vs Jagdev Singh Talwandi on 16 Dec 1983 (Casemine)

Citations : [1984 CRLJ SC 177], [1984 SCC 1 596], [1984 CRIMES SC 1 224], [1983 SCALE 2 942], [1984 SCC CRI 135], [1984 SCR 2 50], [1984 AIR SC 444]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158281/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac0be4b014971140dde1#

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 5-Judge Constitutional Bench Decision Delay in Passing Orders or Judgments After Reserving the Same Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes State of Punjab Vs Jagdev Singh Talwandi | Leave a comment

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Zaixhu Xie and Ors on 11 Dec 2020

Posted on January 14, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A 3-judge bench of Supreme Court cited an recent decision passed wherein it was held as follows:

We appreciate that the learned Judge may have delivered a number of judgments and dealt with many cases and in the interregnum period may have even faced some personal difficulty as set out in the report but that does not take away from the fact that the process which was required to be
followed as set out in the judicial pronouncements has not been followed in the present case. If a judgment cannot be delivered on the same date or immediately thereafter, logically the judgment ought to have been at least reserved to facilitate the Judge to pen down the order. Result of not doing so is that the appellant being the aggrieved party, is unable to avail of the legal remedy.
We have to follow the same course of action as in the judgment referred to aforesaid and thus set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for reconsideration of the High Court on merits, uninfluenced by the reasons which have been set out in the impugned order.
Needless to say the matter would be taken up by a Bench not consisting of the member who constituted the bench earlier.

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Zaixhu Xie and Ors on 11 Dec 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Delay in Passing Orders or Judgments After Reserving the Same Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Zaixhu Xie and Ors | Leave a comment

Murali Vs State on 05 Jan 2021

Posted on January 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

This 3 judge bench of Supreme Court held that, if the parties compromise in a non-compoundable case, the sentence can be reduced. Here are the grounds taken by Court,

13. Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to
take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants. We say so because: first, the parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence.
14. Second, at the time of the incident, the victim was a college student, and both appellants too were no older than 2022 years. The attack was in
pursuance of a verbal altercation during a sports match, with there being no previous enmity between the parties. It does raise hope that parties would have grown up and have mended their ways. Indeed, in the present case, fifteen years have elapsed since the incident. The appellants are today in their mid-thirties and present little chance of committing the same crime.
15. Third, the appellants have no other criminal antecedents, no previous enmity, and today are married and have children. They are the sole bread
earners of their family and have significant social obligations to tend to. In such circumstances, it might not serve the interests of society to keep them
incarcerated any further.
16. Finally, both appellants have served a significant portion of their sentences. Murali has undergone more than half of his sentence and Rajavelu has been in jail for more than one year and eight months.

Murali Vs State on 05 Jan 2021
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Murali Vs State Reduction of Sentence in case of Compromise even in case on Non-Compoundable Offence Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Ors on 19 Feb 1993

Posted on January 10, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

One of the earliest Judgments around Zero FIR.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Ors on 19 Feb 1993 (Casemine)

Citations : [1993 AIR SC 2644], [1994 SCC SUPP 1 590], [1993 CRLJ SC 3684], [1994 SCC CRI 1 734], [1993 JT SUPPL SC 531]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1289339/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac7fe4b014971140f064

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Ors Zero FIR to be Filed Investigated and Transferred | Leave a comment

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977

Posted on January 6, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Definition of Circumstantial evidence established by Supreme Court in this case. This corresponds to Sec 106 of Evidence Act.

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. It is well-established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.

8. We will first consider whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the appeal and secondly in interfering with the order of acquittal. Entertainment of the appeal by the High Court against an acquittal will be justified only under special circumstances. They exist in this case. We find that the Sessions Judge has committed a manifest error of record when he held that “there was a pool of blood in the outer room and trail of blood-stains leading from the outer room to the inner room”. We do not find a tittle of evidence, oral or documentary to substantiate the above statement in the judgment of the Sessions Judge relying on which he came to the conclusion “that the victim was stabbed in the outer room while she was running from the outer room into the inner room”. The Sessions Judge fell into a grave error by coming to this grossly erroneous conclusion absolutely unsupported by any evidence.

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977 (Indiankanoon)

Casemine version

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977 (Casemine)

Citations : [1978 AIR SC 424], [1978 GLR 19 268], [1978 SCC 1 228], [1978 SCR 2 471], [1978 CAR 57], [1978 SCC CRI 108], [1978 CRLJ SC 489], [1978 CRLR SC 72]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083864/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcae4b014971140d562

https://india.lawi.asia/umedbhai-jadavbhai-v-the-state-of-gujarat/

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Circumstantial Evidence - Suspicion cannot take the place of proof Evidence Act 106 - Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat | Leave a comment

State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 15 Jan 2002

Posted on January 6, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Governments cannot be allowed to waste State Exchequer

It is an admitted fact that for construction of the Punjab portion of SYL Canal, more than Rs 560 crores have already been spent, as is apparent from Ext. P-13 and the entire money has been paid by the Government of India. It is indeed a matter of great concern that while huge amount of public exchequer has been spent in the construction of the canal and only a few portion of the canal within the territory of Punjab has not been dug, the canal is not being put to use on the mere insistence of the State of Punjab. The attitude of the State of Punjab to say the least, is wholly unreasonable, dogmatic and is against the national interest. It is equally a matter of great concern for this Court that the Central Government is taking an indifferent attitude in the matter and is only trying to while away the time, even though it continues to pay the State of Punjab substantially, even for the maintenance of the operation of canal that has already been dug.

and…

That apart, more than Rs 700 crores of public revenue cannot be allowed to be washed down the drain, when the entire portion of the canal within the territory of Haryana has already been completed and major portion of the said canal within the territory of Punjab also has been dug, leaving only minor patches within the said territory of Punjab to be completed.

Here is the casemine version

State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 15 Jan 2002 (Casemine)

Here is the Indiankanoon version

State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 15 Jan 2002

Citations : [2002 SCALE 1 238], [2002 AIR SC 303], [2002 SUPREME 1 14], [2002 SCC 2 507], [2002 AIR SC 685], [2002 AIR SCW 303]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/255258/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adaee4b0149711411f5b

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Landmark Case Misuse of Public Funds Reportable Judgement or Order Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr Work-In-Progress Article | 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
tejashyy TEJASH 🚩 @tejashyy ·
3 Aug

🚨 Harsh Dubey announces a Reservation Reform protest at Jantar Mantar:

Harsh Dubey has been granted permission by the Delhi Police to hold a protest for the Reservation Reform movement at Jantar Mantar from 21st August.

He is currently not associated with the Reservation

Reply on Twitter 2084291003440410711 Retweet on Twitter 2084291003440410711 2215 Like on Twitter 2084291003440410711 10308 X 2084291003440410711
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
mrsgandhi Priti Gandhi @mrsgandhi ·
3 Aug

Motor mouth @SupriyaShrinate is comparing percentages without telling viewers what they're percentages of.

That's not analysis. It is a misleading statistical comparison.

What she is dishonestly not telling the viewers is that the 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳

Reply on Twitter 2084389159159107762 Retweet on Twitter 2084389159159107762 416 Like on Twitter 2084389159159107762 1378 X 2084389159159107762
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
venom1s ︎ ︎venom @venom1s ·
3 Aug

Why do feminist girls love humiliating their fathers?

Reply on Twitter 2084301638756679929 Retweet on Twitter 2084301638756679929 141 Like on Twitter 2084301638756679929 896 X 2084301638756679929
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rekha_9999 Rekha @rekha_9999 ·
4 Aug

అసలు సంస్కారం ఉందా? వయసుకు తగ్గట్టుగా మాట్లాడడం రాకపోతే 2029లో ప్రజలే మీకు తుక్కుతుక్కుగా బుద్ధి చెబుతారు
@AmbatiRambabu ఈసారి single digit కి fix cheyalani చూస్తున్నట్టు ఉన్నారు గా
#YCheapCriminalPolitics

Reply on Twitter 2084500882532487293 Retweet on Twitter 2084500882532487293 76 Like on Twitter 2084500882532487293 367 X 2084500882532487293
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ishwar Chand Sharma and Ors Vs State of U.P. on 29 May 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram and Anr Vs Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar and Anr on 21 Jul 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 July 21, 2026
  • Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 July 21, 2026
  • Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 July 21, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (5,149 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,182 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,554 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,153 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (2,097 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (2,066 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (2,042 views)
  • Application for Certified Copy of FIR – Format, Procedure and Sample Draft (1,782 views)
  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (1,752 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case (1,713 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (439)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (424)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (387)Landmark Case (384)1-Judge Bench Decision (370)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (298)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (70)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)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (760)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 (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (83)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (51)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 Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • 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)

Archives of SoK

  • 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 Cloudflare Status

  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-09-02 September 2, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Sep 2, 05:00 - 09:00 UTC Jul 21, 15:30 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter on 2026-09-02 between 05:00 and 09:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 34.80.42.67 | S August 4, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 3 | First: 2026-08-04 | Last: 2026-08-04
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 474 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel