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: CrPC 199 – Defamation

M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968

Posted on January 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark classic case, Supreme Court has held that,

16. In a recent judgment of the House of Lords Rumping v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1962 3 All ER 256 Rumping the in mate of a Dutch ship was tried for murder committed on board the ship. Part of the evidence for the prosecution admitted at the trial consisted of a letter that Rumping  had written to his wife in Holland which amounted to a confession. Rumping had written the letter on the day of the killing, and had handed the letter in a closed envelope to a member of the crew requesting him to post it as soon as the ship arrived at the port outside England. After the appellant was arrested, the member of the crew handed the envelope to the captain of the ship who handed it over to the police. The member of the crew, the captain and the translator of the letter gave evidence at the trial, but the wife was not called as witness. It was held that the letter was admissible in evidence. Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Lord Hodson and Lord Pearce were of the view that at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy. Accordingly except where the spouse to whom the communication is made is a witness and claims privilege from disclosure under the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (of which the terms are similar to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act though not identical), evidence as to communications between husband and wife during marriage is admissible in criminal proceedings.
17. The question whether the complainant in this case is an agent of the wife because he has received the letters from the wife and may be permitted to give evidence is a matter on which no opinion at this stage can be expressed. The complainant claims that he has been defamed by the writing of the letters. The letters are in his possession and are available for being tendered in evidence. We see no reason why inquiry into that complaint should, on the preliminary contentions raised, be prohibited. If the complainant seeks to support his case only upon the evidence of the wife of the accused, he may be met with the bar of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whether he will be able to prove the letters in any other manner is a matter which must be left to be determined at the trial and cannot be made the subject-matter of an enquiry at this stage.

 

Supreme Court of India version:

M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968

Case Mine version:

M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968 Casemine

Citations: [1969 SCR 2 692], [1970 AIR SC 1876], [968 KERLT 904], [1950 AIR TC 38], [1969 SCC 1 37], [1970 CAR 210], [1970 CRLJ 0 1651], [1970 CRI LJ 1651]

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


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926

Posted on January 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Indian Law Review version (Original):

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 ILR

Indiankanoon Version:

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926

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

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


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


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

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

M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Kerala High Court hass held that,

Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.

M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006

Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758], [2006 (2) KLT 122]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1547517/


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


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

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr Statement Filed in Court is Published

Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on landmark judgments here, here and here, Karnataka High Court held that,

  1. a written statement is a public document
  2. a criminal proceeding can be initiated when a civil proceeding is ongoing
Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008

Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56093e42e4b0149711231bf9


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


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

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation

Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November 1965

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Madras High Court held that,

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

Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965

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

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


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


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

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

Defamation Judgments

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here I list the landmark judgments from High Courts of India and Supreme Court of India.

 

1920-1925

  1. Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922 (Bombay High Court: the purpose of the codified statute is that on any point specifically dealt with by it the law shall be ascertained by interpreting the language used; the Court is not entitled to invoke the Common Law of England in the matter of defamation)

1926-1930

  1. Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint are accusations in nature and they do not have absolute privilege but only qualified privilege as provided by sec 499 of IPC)

 

1931-1935

 

1936-1940

 

1941-1945

 

1946-1950

 

1951-1955

 

1956-1960

 

1961-1965

  1. Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was  admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter)

 

1966-1970

  1. M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968 (Supreme Court of India:  at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy.)

 

1971-1975

  1. Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971 (Supreme Court of India:  as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court)

 

1976-1980

  1. Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978 (defamation has to be filed with in time limitation as per 468 CrPC)

 

 

1996-2000

  1. Mukund Martand Chitnis Vs Madhuri Mukund Chitnis And on 23 April 1991 ()
  2. Dr. J.Sudarshan Vs R.Sankaran on 16 August, 1991 (Madras High Court: The Civil Court would confine its decision to the trespass, threat of injury and damage by the servants, agents and workmen of the various defendants and the entitlement of token damages by the respondent, while the criminal Court, the passage being per se defamatory, would proceed to find out whether any one of the 10 Exceptions to S. 499, I.P.C. would apply.)
  3. Shatrughna Prasad Sinha Vs Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi and Ors on 10 September 1996 (SC: Statements made were not defamatory)

 

2001-2005

 

2006-2010

  1. M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006 (Kerala HC: ‘Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.‘)
  2. Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 Jul 2007 (SC: Limitation u/s 468 starts from the date of making the complaint and not on the date the cognizance was taken)
  3. Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008 (Karnataka High Court: “a written statement is a public document” and “a criminal proceeding can be initiated when a civil proceeding is ongoing”)
  4. Anubhav Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan on 5 October 2009 (At SC, all cases quashed, after settlement)

 

2011-2015

  1. Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)
  2. Gambhirsinh R.Dekare Vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Anr on 11 March 2013 (SC held allegation to the effect who authorised printing of defamatory statements is sufficient)
  3. Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014 (Bombay HC: Divorce for husband due to mental cruelty via defamation by knife)
  4. Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015 (Procedure for filing non-cognizable cases defined by Dipak Misra)
  5. Rajdeep Sardesai Vs State Of A.P on 14 May 2015 (SC dismissed Quash against AP HC Order)
  6. S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015 (At SC: Amendment allowed in complaint)

 

2016-2020

  1. Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May, 2016 (Supreme Court: IPC 499 and 500 and CrPC 199 are Constitutionally valid)
  2. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha Vs Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd and Ors on 06 July 2017 (Delhi HC: No territorial jurisdiction)
  3. Mahadev I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd and Ors on 10 July 2017 (Delhi HC:)
  4. E.Krishna and Ors Vs Srinivasa Chary on 17 November 2017 (AP HC: Not defamation)
  5. X Vs Y on 2 November, 2018 (Bombay HC: Impotent word is Defamatory)
  6. M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020 (Kerala High Court: Complaint of defamation cannot be quashed under section 482 CrPC, as it does not have absolute privilege and only qualified privilege)
  7. Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors on 6 Mar 2020 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)

 

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article

M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on landmark judgments given in the Index below, Kerala High Court held that, complaint of defamation against him cannot be quashed u/s 482 CrPC.

M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020

Citations: [ICL 2020 Ker. 14], [2020 (1) KHC 390], [2020 SCC ONLINE KER 85], [2020 KLJ 2 359]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149840024/


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala

Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015

Posted on December 18, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Dipak Misra states that Magistrate has to be alive about the allegation brought to him via Non-cognizable case by Police.

From Paras 26 and 27,

26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.

27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.

From Para 30,

30. In the present case, we are obligated to say that learned Magistrate should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid provision before venturing into directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is because the Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needles to emphasize, the legislative mandate, has to be kept in mind.

Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015

Citations: [AIR 2015 SC 1758], [2015 (3) RLW 2404 (SC)], [2015(3) PLJR 78(SC)], [2015 SCL SC 130 472], [2015 AIOL 3152], [2015 CRIMES SC 2 179], [2015 CRIMES SC 2 209], [2015 CRLJ SC 2396], [2015 JCC SC 2 974], [2015 JT 5 203], [2015 SCALE 4 120], [2015 SCC 6 287], [2015 SLT 3 431], [2015 SUPREME 3 152], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 272], [2015 CTC 3 103], [2015 KLJ 2 491], [2015 KERLT 2 451], [2015 SCC CRI 4 153], [2015 SCC CIV 3 294]

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163299097/

Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b242e561097e45a4e25a


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here. Index of Judgments under Sec 156(3) Cr.P.C. are here.


 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 154 - Information in Cognizable Cases CrPC 156(3) - Any Magistrate Empowered u/s 190 May Order Such an Investigation as above-mentioned CrPC 156(3) - Application to be supported by an Affidavit CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Lalita Kumari Vs Govt.Of U.P. and Ors Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors Reportable Judgement or Order

Mahadev I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd and Ors on 10 July 2017

Posted on January 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Mahadevi I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd & Ors on 10 July, 2017

The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 227 - Defamation Quashed Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation Mahadev I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd and Ors Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Mukund Martand Chitnis Vs Madhuri Mukund Chitnis And on 23 April 1991

Posted on January 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

It is a case where the defamation done by husband has backfired at Hon’ble Supreme Court. He had to cough up maintenance amount, plus huge fine.

Paisa phekho, Acquit Ho jao

Mukund Martand Chitnis vs Madhuri Mukund Chitnis And on 23 April, 1991

Citations: [2

Other Source links:


The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.


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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Convicted Under IPC 498A CrPC 199 - Defamation IPC 498A Compounded IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 500 - Punishment For Defamation Mukund Martand Chitnis vs Madhuri Mukund Chitnis Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older 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
bjp4india BJP @bjp4india ·
15 May

कुछ ऐसा था #OperationSindoor 😎😂

Reply on Twitter 1923002656483606564 Retweet on Twitter 1923002656483606564 8736 Like on Twitter 1923002656483606564 57916 X 1923002656483606564
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
indian_analyzer The Analyzer (News Updates🗞️) @indian_analyzer ·
14h

HUGE: 30+ acres of Okhla LANDFILL reclaimed. Height reduced from 60m to 20m in just 3 months👏🏼
~ By Oct 2025, 20L MT legacy garbage to be cleared. By 2028, All Garbage mountains in Delhi GONE.

Delhi Govt & @MSSirsa is delivering what others only promised👌🏼

Reply on Twitter 1923258365259485199 Retweet on Twitter 1923258365259485199 3189 Like on Twitter 1923258365259485199 12892 X 1923258365259485199
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shrivastavani ExtraSpiceAni @shrivastavani ·
15 May

Maharaj ji ka control button toot gaya hai 😭💀

Reply on Twitter 1923049975312679143 Retweet on Twitter 1923049975312679143 797 Like on Twitter 1923049975312679143 4892 X 1923049975312679143
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
sputnikint Sputnik @sputnikint ·
14 May

🇷🇺🇲🇾PUTIN'S ROYAL RIDDLE: HOW DID MALAYSIA'S PM CRACK THE CODE?

Reply on Twitter 1922677118195949951 Retweet on Twitter 1922677118195949951 1381 Like on Twitter 1922677118195949951 5027 X 1922677118195949951
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024 May 13, 2025
  • Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024 May 3, 2025
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 May 1, 2025
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 April 18, 2025
  • Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025 April 18, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,074 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (1,342 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (1,300 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,233 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (887 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (793 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (754 views)
  • Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of AP on 13 Nov 2024 (718 views)
  • State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024 (665 views)
  • Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024 (623 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (398)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (369)Landmark Case (366)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (365)1-Judge Bench Decision (288)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (270)Work-In-Progress Article (217)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (96)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (59)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (37)Advocate Antics (36)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (711)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (318)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (177)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (105)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (65)General Study Material (55)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (35)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • 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

  • KHH (Kaohsiung City) on 2025-06-04 June 4, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 18:00 - 22:00 UTCMay 12, 23:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in KHH (Kaohsiung City) datacenter on 2025-06-04 between 18:00 and 22:00 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 […]
  • CRK (Tarlac City) on 2025-06-04 June 4, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 18:00 - 22:00 UTCMay 12, 23:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in CRK (Tarlac City) datacenter on 2025-06-04 between 18:00 and 22:00 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 […]
  • ULN (Ulaanbaatar) on 2025-06-04 June 4, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 18:00 - 22:00 UTCMay 12, 23:36 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ULN (Ulaanbaatar) datacenter on 2025-06-04 between 18:00 and 22:00 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 end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.243.242.105 | SD May 16, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4,427 | First: 2021-07-30 | Last: 2025-05-16
  • 103.232.202.69 | SD May 16, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 28,051 | First: 2017-12-07 | Last: 2025-05-16
  • 201.231.83.229 | SD May 16, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,808 | First: 2008-12-21 | Last: 2025-05-16
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 5315 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel