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

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Arun Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 10 July 2019

Posted on December 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Whether an Advocate, while acting under the instructions of his client and proceeding professionally, can be prosecuted / punished for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is the precise question involved in this petition which came before High Court of Chhattisgarh.

From Para 10,

10. It appears from the aforesaid genealogical tree that respondent No.2 herein has been shown to be the concubine / wife of Ghanshyam Pandey. This, according to respondent No.2, is defamatory, as she is the legally married wife of Ghanshyam Pandey after the death of his first wife Smt. Tarini Pandey and that led to the present dispute.

From Para 24,

24. In light of above-stated legal analysis, an advocate, who acted professionally as per instructions of his/her client, cannot be made criminally liable for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC unless contrary is alleged and established.

From Para 26,

….

As such, an Advocate who has acted professionally and drafted plaint making averment as per the instructions of his client, cannot be held liable for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC.

Finally from Para 33,

33. Admittedly, respondent No.2 claims that the alleged incident happened in the year 2014 and after lapse of 3-4 years, FIR has been lodged which clearly goes to show that there was no intention of the petitioner to cause harm, as in such a case, she would have rushed to the police authority well in time. As such, even it cannot be held that the petitioner has abused and insulted respondent No.2 in terms of Section 506 of the IPC.

Arun Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 10 July 2019
Posted in High Court of Chhattisgarh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Advocate Antics Arun Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to IPC 294 - Not Made Out IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation Not Made Out IPC 506 - Not Made Out IPC 509 - Not Made Out Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Professional Advice of Advocate | Leave a comment

Vipul Lakhanpal Vs Pooja Sharma on 01 June 2015

Posted on December 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench held that husband has to pay maintenance even if wife is earning salary and he does not have salary. Just 15 pages. Read yourself.

Vipul Lakhanpal Vs Pooja Sharma on 01 June 2015
Posted in High Court of Himachal Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted Reportable Judgement or Order Vipul Lakhanpal Vs Pooja Sharma | Leave a comment

Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018

Posted on December 2, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Relatives not living in a shared household were implicated in a false DV case, so High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the DV proceedings against the petitioners.

Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100106255/

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nafisa-Anjum-Versus-State-of-Chhattisgarh-Through-Officer-In-Charge-Police-Station-2018-09-26

http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=028102399000

Posted in High Court of Chhattisgarh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh Non-Reportable Judgement or Order PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra | Leave a comment

Jugal Vs State of Rajasthan on 25 Nov 2020

Posted on November 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Rajasthan High Court passed a direction to all trial Courts in Rajasthan that, in all Bail matters u/s 437/438,  a detailed report on antecedents of the accused is to be filed along with judgment.

There is no mention regarding the status of criminal antecedents of the present petitioner in the impugned order. It is often seen by this Court that the learned courts below are not specific in regard to antecedents of the accused persons, which causes delay in the disposal of the bail applications, as, if the person is not having antecedents and his antecedents are called, receiving of such antecedents reports takes quite some time. Though the antecedent alone is not a ground of rejecting or accepting a bail, but it is must that the Hon’ble High Court should have the antecedent report to check the applicability of Section 437 (1) of Cr.P.C. as well as to weigh the case of the accused person with overall perspective of the allegations levelled.

Thus, this Court directs that all learned trial courts shall, while allowing or disallowing any regular/anticipatory bail application of any accused person,give the complete details of the antecedents, if any, and also record that there are no antecedents of the accused person in case of none being there. If there are antecedents of the accused, then the complete details of the antecedents i.e. FIR Number(s) & Case Number(s), Section(s), date(s), status and date of arrest & release on any previous occasion, if any, in the chart form shall be prepared and incorporated in the learned trial courts’ order, while granting or dismissing the bail application.
This order shall be conveyed by the Registry of this Court to all learned District & Sessions Judges of the State, who shall ensure the immediate implementation of this order amongst all the judicial officers and all courts in their respective jurisdiction, which are hearing the bail applications. The detailed antecedents report in aforesaid format so provided in the trial courts’ order shall be the requirement of disposal of any bail application in State of Rajasthan. It is also directed that the learned Public Prosecutors all over the State shall call for the antecedents report well in advance in every case of bail, so as to enable the courts to have a definite and correct information regarding previous criminal antecedents of the accused. A certified copy of this order be also sent by the Registry to the Director of the Prosecution Department of the State for necessary compliance, amongst the learned Public Prosecutors all over the State of Rajasthan.
The Registry of this Hon’ble Court shall ensure compliance of this order, in its letter and spirit, and submit such compliance before this Court on 05.01.2021.

Jugal Vs State of Rajasthan on 25 Nov 2020
Posted in High Court of Rajasthan Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed Jugal Vs State of Rajasthan Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr on 26 Sep 2005

Posted on November 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench of Andhra Pradesh held that, cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.

From Para 3,

3. Since O.S. No. 1141 of 2000, later renumbered as O.S. No. 20 of 2003, was ordered to be tried along with O.S. No. 47 of 1998, obviously common evidence is being recorded in both the suits. When two suits are clubbed and tried together, all the parties to the suits have a right to cross-examine the witness examined by the adversary, because Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Act’) confers such right on them. As per that Section 138 of the Act the witness called by a party shall first be examined-in-chief and if the adverse party so desires he can cross-examine him and then if the party calling him so desires, can re-examine him. That section specifically lays down that Chief examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.

Casemine copy:

K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr on 26 Sep 2005 (casemine)

Legal Crystal copy:

K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr on 26 Sep 2005 (legalcrystal)

Citations : [2006 ALD 1 370], legalcrystal.com/442436

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166172/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f85de4b01497111422e0

https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/442436/k-c-kanniyappa-vs-lalitha-anr

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Evidence Act 138 - Cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his Examination-in-chief Evidence Act 138 - Order of Examinations K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha on 23 Nov 2020

Posted on November 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single judge bench of Orissa High Court, in this bail matter, held that right to be forgotten (or left alone) is part of bouquet of rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

From Para 5,

5. While examining the pages of the case records, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has uploaded the said photos/videos on a social media platform i.e. Facebook and with the intervention of the police, after some days, he deleted the said objectionable contents from the Facebook. In fact, the information in the public domain is like toothpaste, once it is out of the tube one can’t get it back in and once the information is in the public domain it will never go away. Under the Indian Criminal Justice system a strong penal action is prescribed against the accused for such heinous crime but there is no mechanism available with respect to the right of the victim to get the objectionable photographs deleted from the server of the Facebook. The different types of harassment, threats and assaults that frighten citizens in regard to their online presence pose serious concerns for
citizens. There is an unprecedented escalation of such insensitive behavior on the social media platforms and the victim like the present one could not get those photos deleted permanently from server of such social media platforms like facebook. Though the statute prescribes penal action for the
accused for such crimes, the rights of the victim, especially, her right to privacy which is intricately linked to her right to get deleted in so far as those objectionable photos have been left unresolved. There is a widespread and seemingly consensual convergence towards an adoption and enshrinement of the right to get deleted or forgotten but hardly any effort has been undertaken in India till recently, towards adoption of such a right, despite such an issue has inexorably posed in the technology dominated world. Presently, there is no statute in India which provides for the right to be forgotten/getting the photos erased from the server of the social media platforms permanently. The legal possibilities of being forgotten on line or off line cries for a widespread debate. It is also an undeniable fact that the implementation of right to be forgotten is a thorny issue in terms of practicality and technological nuances. In fact, it cries for a clear cut demarcation of institutional boundaries and redressal of many delicate issues which hitherto remain unaddressed in Indian jurisdiction. The dynamics of hyper connectivity- the abundance, pervasiveness and accessibility of communication network have redefined the memory and the prescriptive mandate to include in the technological contours is of pressing importance.

From Para 14,

14. Section 27 of the draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 contains the right to be forgotten. Under Section 27, a data principal (an individual) has the right to prevent continuing disclosure of personal data by a data fiduciary. The aforesaid provision which falls under Chapter VI (Data Principal Rights) of the Bill, distinctly carves out the “right to be forgotten” in no uncertain terms. In terms of this provision, every data principal shall have the right to restrict or prevent continuing disclosure of personal data (relating to such data principal) by any data fiduciary if such disclosure meets any one of the following three conditions, namely if the disclosure of personal data:
(i) has served the purpose for which it was made or is no longer necessary; or
(ii) was made on the basis of the data  principal’s consent and such consent has since been withdrawn; or
(iii) was made contrary to the provisions of the bill or any other law in force.
In addition to this, Section 10 of the Bill provides that a data fiduciary shall retain personal data only as long as may be reasonably necessary to satisfy the purpose for which it is  processed. Further, it imposes an obligation on every data fiduciary to undertake periodic reviews in order to  determine whether it is necessary to retain the personal data in its possession. If it is not necessary for personal data to be retained by a data fiduciary, then such personal data must be deleted in a manner as may be specified.

 

Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha on 23 Nov 2020

Index of Article 21 case laws is here.

Posted in High Court of Orissa Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail Right to be Forgotten Right to be left alone Right to Personal Liberty Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha | Leave a comment

Amol Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 Apr 2018

Posted on November 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single Judge of Bombay High Court held that, burden of proof shifting to accused in POCSO cases is not absolute and that the Prosecution has to establish their case on foundational
facts, only after which burden of proof shifts onto accused.

From Para 4, truth comes out.

4. It is admitted by the victim that Hindi books were found on her desk by the accused. The victim was suggested that since the Hindi books were found or discovered by the accused, she left the examination hall crying. The defence, obviously, is that in order to escape the consequences of the unfair practice while answering the Hindi paper, the victim falsely implicated the accused.

From Para 6,

6. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act must be understood and tested on the anvil of the golden thread which runs through web of the criminal jurisprudence system in this country that an accused is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is conclusively established beyond reasonable doubt. In the factual matrix, at best, the prosecution has succeeded in bringing on record material giving rise to some suspicion. However, it is trite law that suspicion is not a substitute to proof. The gulf between “might have committed” and “must have committed” must be bridged by the prosecution by unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence.

Amol Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 Apr 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186788466/

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Amol Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations POCSO Act Sec 29 - Burden of Proof on Accused | Leave a comment

Jangala Sambasiva Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 28 Oct 2020

Posted on November 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justise Lalitha Kanneganti held that there is violation of Guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar in effecting an arrest without complying with 41A CrPC procedure and held demanded reports from both Police belonging to concerned PS and also the Magistrate who mechanically issue Judicial custody.

Jangala Sambasiva Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 28 Oct 2020

A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr CrPC 41A - Notice of appearance before police officer Jangala Sambasiva Rao Vs State of AP and Anr | Leave a comment

Vikas Sharma Vs Monica Parashar on 30 Sep 2016

Posted on November 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single Judge declared as follows with regards to the application of Sec 25(2) of PWDV Act 2005 and specifically, what does ‘change in circumstances’ mean.

32. I find no force in the contention of the appellant that merely filing of application under section 25 (2) of the D. V. Act would amount to a change  in the circumstances. The phrase “change in circumstances” would require that the circumstances on the basis of which any previous order was passed under this Act have undergone alteration, modification or have ceased to exist and warrant interference of the court. Hence, the contention of the appellant that merely filing an application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act would amount to change in circumstances cannot be accepted. Moreover, if such arguments of the appellant is accepted then parties will take advantage of such interpretation and would intentionally stay away from court on a day when any order is to be passed so that after passing of the order, they would file the application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act and would plead that mere filing of an application under section 25(2) of the D.V. Act is a change in the circumstances thereby warranting passing of orders under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act.

33. A perusal of the application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act filed by the appellant before the trial court shows that in the said application, the appellant has nowhere mentioned that consequent to the passing of the order by which interim maintenance has been fixed, there has been any change in the circumstances which warranted filing the application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act for modification of the previous order dated 10.04.2015.

Vikas Sharma Vs Monica Parashar on 30 Sep 2016
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 25 - Change in Circumstances Vikas Sharma Vs Monica Parashar | Leave a comment

Binita Dass Vs Uttam Kumar on 9 Aug 2019

Posted on November 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge Bench said one thing in this Order which is as follows:

7. Qualification of the wife and the capacity to earn cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance to a wife who is dependant and does not have any source of income.

The converse is read like this:

Wife who is independant and have source of income, can be a ground to deny interim maintenance to a wife.

Binita Dass Vs Uttam Kumar on 9 Aug 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92763076/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d8b2ff8714d58374079df99


Index of Maintenance cases under Section 125 CrPC here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Binita Dass Vs Uttam Kumar Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 23 - Interim Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 23 – No Interim Maintenance to Wife who has Source of Income | 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
andhranexus Andhra Nexus @andhranexus ·
15 Jul

The first batch of EV buses has arrived at the Steel Plant Depot. Another 20 buses will be added to the APSRTC fleet by next week.
#Visakhapatnam #Vizag

Reply on Twitter 2077378117358985308 Retweet on Twitter 2077378117358985308 41 Like on Twitter 2077378117358985308 391 X 2077378117358985308
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
republic Republic @republic ·
15 Jul

SUPER EXCLUSIVE | China Link to CJP? Controversy Erupts Over senior Left Leaders' Meeting With Chinese Envoy At Jantar Mantar

Tune in to LIVE TV for fastest #BREAKING alerts - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGHj8ID_Skc

#RepublicWorld #RepublicTV #RepublicExclusive #RepublicDigital

Reply on Twitter 2077320506286727389 Retweet on Twitter 2077320506286727389 98 Like on Twitter 2077320506286727389 278 X 2077320506286727389
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
tweets_tinku Tinku Venkatesh | ಟಿಂಕು ವೆಂಕಟೇಶ್ @tweets_tinku ·
15 Jul

A must watch

“There is an attempt to make Tipu Sultan a national hero, I don’t know why”

Tipu Sultan unleashed destruction in the Malabar region & wanted higher-caste women to be converted or killed

Atrocities of Tipu Sultan by HH Aswathy Thirunal Gowri Lakshmi Bayi of

Reply on Twitter 2077219338403066048 Retweet on Twitter 2077219338403066048 453 Like on Twitter 2077219338403066048 853 X 2077219338403066048
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
modernxdad Modern Dad @modernxdad ·
15 Jul

He beat them with their own logic‼️

Reply on Twitter 2077308938689855859 Retweet on Twitter 2077308938689855859 297 Like on Twitter 2077308938689855859 3133 X 2077308938689855859
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Vikram Kumar Jha Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 10 Jul 2026 July 16, 2026
  • Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs N.C.T. Delhi and Anr on 23 Mar 2001 July 12, 2026
  • Application for Day-to-Day Trial – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft July 8, 2026
  • Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs JnK Bank and Anr on 02 Jul 2026 July 8, 2026
  • A.S.S.K.Durga Prasad Vs NCDRC and Ors on 24 Jun 2026 July 7, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (5,067 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,625 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,561 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,033 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,410 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (2,173 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,072 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,953 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,897 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (1,842 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (436)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (422)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (386)Landmark Case (383)1-Judge Bench Decision (367)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (297)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 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)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (41)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (758)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 (165)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 (62)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

  • 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

  • July 2026 (14)
  • 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

  • BCN (Barcelona) on 2026-07-27 July 27, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 27, 03:30 - 12:30 UTC Jul 16, 10:15 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BCN (Barcelona) datacenter on 2026-07-27 between 03:30 and 12:30 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 188.95.67.225 | S July 17, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 147 | First: 2025-03-29 | Last: 2026-07-17
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 915 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel