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: Uncategorized

Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991

Posted on January 19 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court gave these interpretations to the various conditions under Section 13 of C.P.C. while deciding a foreign judgment is enforceable in India or not.

From Para 12,

12. We believe that the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Code are capable of being interpreted to secure the required certainty in the sphere of this branch of law in conformity with public policy, justice, equity and good conscience, and the rules so evolved will protect the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the unity of family which are the corner stones of our societal life.

Clause (a) of Section 13 states that a foreign judgment shall not be recognised if it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. We are of the view that this clause should be interpreted to mean that only that court will be a court of competent jurisdiction which the Act or the law under which the parties are married recognises as a court of competent jurisdiction to entertain the matrimonial dispute. Any other court should be held to be a court without jurisdiction unless both parties voluntarily and unconditionally subject themselves to the jurisdiction of that court. The expression “competent court” in Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act has also to be construed likewise.

Clause (b) of Section 13 states that if a foreign has not been given on the merits of the case, the courts in this country will not recognise such judgment. This clause should be interpreted to mean (a) that the decision of the foreign court should be on a ground available under the law under which the parties are married, and (b) that the decision should be a result of the contest between the parties. The latter requirement is fulfilled only when the respondent is duly served and voluntarily and unconditionally submits himself/herself to the jurisdiction of the court and contests the claim, or agrees to the passing of the decree with or without appearance. A mere filing of the reply to the claim under protest and without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, or an appearance in the Court either in person or through a representative for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court, should not be considered as a decision on the merits of the case. In this respect the general rules of the acquiescence to the jurisdiction of the Court which may be valid in other matters and areas should be ignored and deemed inappropriate.

The second part of clause (c) of Section 13 states that where the judgment is founded on a refusal to recognise the law of this country in cases in which such law is applicable, the judgment will not be recognised by the courts in this country. The marriages which take place in this country can only be under either the customary or the statutory law in force in this country. Hence, the only law that can be applicable to the matrimonial disputes is the one under which the parties are married, and no other law. When, therefore, a foreign judgment is founded on a jurisdiction or on ground not recognised by such law, it is a judgment which is in defiance of the Law. Hence, it is not conclusive of the matters adjudicated therein and therefore, unenforceable in this country. For the same reason, such a judgment will also be unenforceable under clause (f) of Section 13, since such a judgment would obviously be in breach of the matrimonial law in force in this country.

Clause (d) of Section 13 which makes a foreign judgment unenforceable on the ground that the proceedings in which it is obtained are opposed to natural justice, states no more than an elementary principle on which any civilised system of justice rests. However, in matters concerning the family law such as the matrimonial disputes, this principle has to b extended to mean something more than mere compliance with the technical rules of procedure. If the rule of audi alteram partem has any meaning with reference to the proceedings in a foreign court, for the purposes of the rule it should not be deemed sufficient that the respondent has been duly served with the process of the court. It is necessary to ascertain whether the respondent was in a position to present or represent himself/herself and contest effectively the said proceedings. This requirement should apply equally to the appellate proceedings if and when they are file by either party. If the foreign court has not ascertained and ensured such effective contest by requiring the petitioner to make all necessary provisions for the respondent to defend including the costs of travel, residence and litigation where necessary, it should be held that the proceedings are in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is for this reason that we find that the rules of Private International Law of some countries insist, even in commercial matters, that the action should be filed in the forum where the defendant is either domiciled or is habitually resident. It is only in special cases which is called special jurisdiction where the claim has some real link with other forum that a judgment of such forum is recognised. This jurisdiction principle is also recognised by the Judgments Convention of this European Community . If, therefore, the courts in this country also insist as a matter of rule that foreign matrimonial judgment will be recognised only it it is of the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides, the provisions of clause (d) may be held to have been satisfied. The provision of clause (e) of Section 13 which requires that the courts in this country will not recognise a foreign judgment if it has been obtained by fraud, is self-evident. However, in view of the decision of this Court in Smt. Satya v. Teja Singh, (supra) it must be understood that the fraud need not be only in relation to the merits of the mater but may also be in relation to jurisdictional facts.

Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991

Citations : [1991 SCC CRI 1 626], [1991 CRIMES SC 2 855], [1991 SCALE 2 1], [1991 SCR 2 821], [1991 SCC 3 451], [1991 DMC SC 2 366], [1991 JT SC 1 33], [1991 LW 2 646]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/989920/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac6be4b014971140ed08

Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision HM Act 13 - Divorce Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr | Leave a comment

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Posted on December 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Earlier, this Court had issued notice to the petitioner himself to show cause that in case it was a fake institution, what was the reason or rationale for the petitioner to join the same and to continue to serve there for one year. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted that such pleadings be ignored and may not be taken into account for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition. We do not see any reason to allow a party to make a pleading in the petition and then make a submission to the court to ignore it as such an issue has no bearing on the merits of the case being totally irrelevant. Pleadings have to be true to the knowledge of the parties and in case a person takes such misleading pleadings, he can be refused not only any kind of indulgence by the court but can also be tried for perjury. In case, the pleading taken by the petitioner is true, he cannot ask for ignoring the same. In case, it is false and as such statement had been made on oath, he is liable to be tried for perjury. More so, whether such a pleading is relevant or not is a matter to be decided by the court and under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, court has a right to ask the party even relevant or irrelevant questions and the parties or their counsel cannot raise any objection to any such question.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Citations : [2014 ALLCC 84 1002], [2014 ALT CRL AP 2 242], [2014 CCR SC 2 37], [2014 COMPLJ SC 3 197], [2014 RCR CIVIL 2 285], [2014 SCALE 1 751], [2014 SCC 9 230], [2014 SCJ 4 412], [2014 SCR 1 848], [2014 UC 1 516], [2014 SCC CRI 5 21], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 67], [2014 AIOL 52], [2014 SCV 1 397], [2014 SLT 3 298], [2014 RAJ 2 401], [2014 AICLR 1 991], [2014 ALLINDCAS 135 270], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 711]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199130163/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af4ce4b0149711416146

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/sanjay-kumar-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-5665

Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Evidence Act 165 - Judge’s Power to Put Questions or Order Production Landmark Case Perjury - Approached Court with Unclean Hands Reportable Judgement or Order Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr | Leave a comment

High Court of Madras Vs B Sathish Kumar and Ors on 27 Aug 2021

Posted on August 30, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

 

High Court of Madras Vs B Sathish Kumar and Ors on 27 Aug 2021
Tagged Advocate Antics Costs For Contempt Of Court Fine For Contempt Of Court High Court of Madras Vs B Sathish Kumar and Ors Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court | Leave a comment

Adv Gorkanti Vinod Kumar

Posted on July 11, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife
గోవధ నిషేధ చట్టం
Telangana & AP Cows Laws:
ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ మరియు తెలంగాణ గోవధ నిషేధ & పశు సంరక్షణ చట్టం 1977 ( The A.P. & T.S. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act ) ప్రకారం…
1) Section – 5 : ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ మరియు తెలంగాణ లో గోవులను , దూడలను (దూడలు మగవి అయినా , ఆడవి అయినా సరే) ఎట్టి పరిస్థితులలో ఉద్దెశపూర్వకంగా చంపకూడదు.
2) Section – 6 : మిగిలిన పశువులను అంటే ఎద్దు, దున్న, గేదె మొదలైనవాటిని చంపాలంటే , వాటి వయస్సు ఖచ్చితంగా 14 సంవత్సరాలు దాటి వుండాలి, అలాగే వ్యవసాయం కి మరియు బ్రీడ్ డెవలప్మెంటకి పూర్తిగా నిరుపయోగంగా వున్నాయని, ప్రభుత్వము నియమించిన పశు వైద్యుడు సర్టిఫికేట్ ఇవ్వాలి.
౩) Section – 8 : ప్రభుత్వ వైద్యుడి సర్టిఫికేట్ ఉన్నప్పటికీ, వాటిని ప్రభుత్వ అనుమతి వున్న కబేళా (పశువధశాల)లలో మాత్రమే వధించాలి, రోడ్డులపై, ఇండ్లల్లో, ఎక్కడ పడితే అక్కడ పశువులను వధించడం, మాంసాన్ని విక్రయించడం నేరము.
4) Section – 11 : ఈ యొక్క యాక్ట్ కాగ్నిజబుల్ (Cognizable) నేరం కింద వస్తుంది
(CRPC 43 ) సిర్ పిసి 43 :- ప్రకారం ఎప్పుడైనా కాగ్నిజబుల్ (Cognizable) నేరం జరిగినప్పుడు, ఎవ్వరైనా ప్రైవేట్ పర్సన్ (Private Person) అనగా మనం, నేరం చేసిన వ్యక్తిని అరెస్ట్ చేసే హక్కు ఉంటుంది, కావున గో వద అనేది కూడా కాగ్నిజబుల్ (Cognizable) నేరం కింద వస్తుంది, కావున గో వద చేసే రవాణా ని అడ్డుకొని అరెస్ట్ చేసే హక్కు ప్రతి ఒక్క ప్రైవెట్ పర్సన్ అనగా పౌరుడికి వుంది అనగా ఏ వ్యక్తి అయినా ఆపొచ్చు తర్వాత పోలీస్ వాళ్లకు అప్పగించాలి
(Animal Cruelty Act 1960 ) అనిమల్ క్రూయల్టీ యాక్ట్ 1960 :
1) Section – 11 : హింసిస్తూ, దెబ్బలు తాకుతూ, గాలి ఆడకుండా, రక్తం వచ్చేటట్టు కట్టేయడం, ఓవర్ లోడ్ చేస్తూ, నొప్పులతో ఇబ్బంది పెడుతూ తీసుకెళ్లడం నేరం
(A.P. & T.S. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, Rule 253 Sub Rule (1), Clause (iii) ) ఏ.పి & టి.ఎస్ మోటార్ వెహికల్ రూల్స్ 1989, రూల్ 253 సుబ్ రూల్(1) క్లాస్ (iii) పశువుల రవాణాకు ప్రకారం నియమాలు:-
1)
a) ఒక లారీలో 06 కంటే ఎక్కువ పశువులను రవాణా చేయకూడదు.
b) ఈ 06 కూడా రవాణా చేస్తున్న సమయములో, పశువైద్యుడి ధ్రువపత్రాన్ని కలిగి వుండాలి.
c) వాహనములో పశువులతోబాటు, వాటి బాగోగులు చూసుకునే వ్యక్తి (attedent) వుండాలి.
d) ప్రధమ చికిత్స పెట్టె (First Aid Box) వుండాలి.
e) మేత, నీరు వుండాలి.
f) మూసివేయబడి ఉన్న వాహనాలో (Closed Containers) పశువులను తరలించకూడదు.
(IPC 428 & IPC 429 ) ఐపిసి 428 & ఐపిసి 429 ప్రకారం
1)పశు రవాణా సమయం లో ఏదైనా పశువు అనగా ఆవు లేదా ఎద్దు చనిపోతే ఈ సెక్షన్స్ కింద కేసు నమోదు చేయించాలి, ఈ సెక్షన్స్ జోడించినచొ 2 లేదా 5 సంవత్సరాలు జైలు శిక్ష పడుతుంది, కావున తప్పకుండ ఈ సెక్షన్స్ వేసేటట్టు చూడాలి అక్రమ గోవుల రవాణా వాహనాలు మనకు కనబడగానే వాటిని ఆపి 100 కి కాల్ చేసి, పోలీస్ వారికి తప్పనిసరిగా సమాచారాన్ని ఇవ్వాలి. పోలీస్ వాళ్లు పట్టుకున్న గోవులను, సురక్షితంగా రిజిస్టర్ అయినా గోశాలకు తరలించాలి అక్రమ రవాణా చేస్తున్న వారి మీద, అమ్మినవారి మీద, కోన్నవారి మీద, శిక్ష పడేలా FIR కేసు వేయించాలి.
అందరు చదవండి – అందరికి పంపించండి
గో మాతలను రక్షించండి జై గో మాత
సవరణ : మీ గోరకంటి వినోద్ కుమార్ (గో రక్షక్)
న్యాయవాది, 9966064644,
ఎల్ బి నగర్, హైదరాబాద్, తెలంగాణా …
Tagged Animal's Rights | Leave a comment

Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Bihar on 4 Feb 2019

Posted on February 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that Perjury cannot be pursued via a private complaint.

From para 16, [Purpose of 340 CrPC]

16. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a prosecution under this Section can be initiated only by the sanction of the court under whose proceedings an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) has allegedly been committed. The object of this Section is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in court during the time when the document or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. The court shall not only consider prima facie case but also see whether it is in or against public interest to allow a criminal proceeding to be instituted.

From Para 18 [Talks about the landmark Santohk Singh decision]

18. In Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 406, this Court has held that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify the feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its
very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution.

Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Bihar on 4 Feb 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37083044/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c59bac09eff4333856aec6c

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sh-narendra-kumar-srivastava-versus-the-state-of-bihar-ors

| Leave a comment

Peddireddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs AP State Election Commission on 07 Feb 2021

Posted on February 9, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

This Advisor blabbered that District Magistrates and Collectors must declare results for seats where there is unanimous result and not to follow direction given by SEC. And if they do not listen to his instructions, his Govt (sic) will identify all such officers and blacklist them. This was said in a press conference by this dog. SEC issued a House Arrest Order and prohibition from speaking to Media since he is influencing the process of Elections.

The dog went to HC and got the House Arrest Order stayed but HC upheld the prohibition on speaking with Media.

Peddireddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs AP State Election Commission on 07 Feb 2021
| 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

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is overruled by Rajinder Singh here.

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1567], [2013 ALT CRI 2 457], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 225], [2013 OLR 2 130], [2013 JT 4 188], [2013 AIR SC 1746], [2013 AIOL 160], [2013 GLR 3 2510], [2013 CRILJ 2095], [2013 AKR 2 339], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 342], [2013 CLT 116 563], [2013 ALD CRI 1 967], [2013 SCALE 3 525], [2013 SUPREME 2 485], [2013 AIC 125 194], [2013 CUTLT 116 563], [2013 PLJR 3 91], [2013 SCC 3 684], [2013 JCC 2 1330], [2013 DMC 1 700], [2013 SLT 2 767], [2013 BLJ 3 531], [2013 SCC CRI 2 15], [2013 SCR 3 449], [2013 ALLCC 82 61], [2013 AD SC 4 275], [2013 CRIMES SC 3 229], [2013 GUJLR 3 2510], [2013 CRLJ SC 2095]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167568223/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af30e4b0149711415c1b


All Dowry related case laws are in this Index here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Not Proved DP Act 4 – Money Demand Not In Connection Of Marriage Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Overruled Judgment Reportable Judgement or Order Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. | Leave a comment

Liquor Business of Andhra Pradesh Government

Posted on May 5, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

 

 

On 04-05-2020,

The Drama started at 25% hiked prices here.

 

On 05-05-2020,

Liquor Rates hiked 75% here.

 

| Leave a comment

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 Jul 2009 January 26, 2023
  • Sabiya Begum Malka Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 May 2016 January 24, 2023
  • Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991 January 19, 2023
  • Messers S.J.S. Business Enterprises Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 17 Mar 2004 January 17, 2023
  • Ramjas Foundation and Ors vs Union of India and Ors on 9 Nov 2010 January 17, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act? (8,891 views)
  • XXX Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 05 July 2022 (2,799 views)
  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (867 views)
  • State Bank of India and Anr Vs Ajay Kumar Sood on 16 Aug 2022 (837 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (816 views)
  • Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors (710 views)
  • P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (658 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (658 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (572 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (556 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (323)Reportable Judgement or Order (319)Landmark Case (310)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (259)Work-In-Progress Article (218)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (210)1-Judge Bench Decision (145)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (79)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (74)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (52)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (34)Advocate Antics (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (629)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (297)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (159)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (108)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (91)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (40)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (39)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (30)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • Vincent on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • Ravi on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022

Archives of SoK

  • 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 (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

  • Maintenance impacting SSL API availability and certificate issuance February 14, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 14, 14:00 - 16:00 UTCJan 26, 10:38 UTCScheduled - On February 14th, 2023, Cloudflare will be doing database maintenance that will impact SSL API availability and may result in certificate issuance delays. The scheduled maintenance will be on February 14, 2023, 14:00 - 16:00 UTC.During the maintenance window, SSL-related […]
  • BOS (Boston) on 2023-02-03 February 3, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 3, 07:00 - 13:00 UTCJan 28, 10:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BOS (Boston) datacenter on 2023-02-03 between 07:00 and 13:00 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 […]
  • JNB (Johannesburg) on 2023-02-03 February 3, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 3, 01:00 - 03:30 UTCJan 27, 01:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in JNB (Johannesburg) datacenter on 2023-02-03 between 01:00 and 03:30 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 45.117.141.165 | SD January 30, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,555 | First: 2015-09-03 | Last: 2023-01-30
  • 203.33.207.187 | S January 30, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2023-01-30 | Last: 2023-01-30
  • 103.4.118.130 | SD January 30, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,940 | First: 2018-08-17 | Last: 2023-01-30
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 428 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel