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: Landmark Case

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020

Posted on January 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A wonderful pronouncement indeed, of a 5-eminent judge Constitutional bench which decided that once Anticipatory Bail is granted u/s 438 CrPC by either a Sessions Court or High Court, it does not have any time limit to it regarding it’s effect. Further, here it was held, No need to get a Regular Bail once AB is granted.

From now onwards, no need to covert Anticipatory Bail into a Regular Bail, upon closure of investigation by I.O. and filing of Charge sheet into a Trial Court.

Here is the Order passed.

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020 Order

And the 133-page jewel of judgment, endorsing the view taken by my favorite Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandavi in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre is below.

From Para 69 of the judgment of Justice Ravindra Bhat (On page 112),

69. Therefore, this court holds that the view expressed in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh, K.L. Verma, Nirmal Jeet Kaur, Satpal Singh, Adri Dharan Das, HDFC Bank, J.J. Manan and Naresh Kumar Yadav (supra) about the Court of Sessions, or the High Court, being obliged to grant anticipatory bail, for a limited duration, or to await the course of investigation, so as the “normal court” not being “bye passed” or that in certain kinds of serious offences, anticipatory bail should not be granted normally- including in economic offences, etc are not good law. The observations – which indicate that such time related or investigative event related conditions, should invariably be imposed at the time of grant of anticipatory bail are therefore, overruled. Similarly, the observations in Mhetre that “the courts should not impose restrictions on the ambit and scope of section 438 Cr.P.C. which are not envisaged by the Legislature. The court cannot rewrite the provision of the statute in the garb of interpreting it” is too wide and cannot be considered good law. It is one thing to say that as a matter of law, ordinarily special conditions (not mentioned in Section 438 (2) read with Section 437 (3) should not be imposed; it is an entirely different thing to say that in particular instances, having regard to the nature of the crime, the role of the accused, or some peculiar feature, special conditions should not be imposed. The judgment in Sibbia itself is an authority that such conditions can be imposed, but not in a routine or ordinary manner and that such conditions then become an inflexible “formula” which the courts would have to follow. Therefore, courts and can, use their discretion, having regard to the offence, the peculiar facts, the role of the offender, circumstances relating to him, his likelihood of subverting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice- to impose special conditions. Imposing such conditions, would have to be on a case to case basis, and upon exercise of discretion by the court seized of the application under Section 438. In conclusion, it is held that imposing conditions such as those stated in Section 437 (2) while granting bail, are normal; equally, the condition that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Other conditions, which are restrictive, are not mandatory; nor is there any invariable rule that they should necessarily be imposed or that the anticipatory bail order would be for a time duration, or be valid till the filing of the FIR, or the recording of any statement under Section 161, Cr. PC, etc. Other conditions may be imposed, if the facts of the case so warrant.

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020 Judgement

Citations : [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 98], [2020 DLT SC 266 741]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123660783/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sushila-aggarwal-and-others-versus-state-nct-of-delhi-and-another

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sushila-aggarwal-and-others-versus-state-nct-of-delhi-and-another

5-judge bench holds no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail [Full report]


The life of this case is in detail available here.


Index of all Anticipatory Bail Matters is here and all Bail matters list is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC Sec 438 - Anticipatory Bail CrPC Sec 438 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest CrPC Sec 438 - Valid Duration For Anticipatory Bail Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) | Leave a comment

S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001

Posted on January 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Unless a valid marriage is proved, a second marriage stands invalid and no offence under section 494 IPC attracts.

S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001

Citations: [2001 AIR SC 3576], [2001 SCALE 6 42], [2001 JT 7 219], [2001 AIR SC 3372], [2001 SCC 7 487], [2001 SUPREME 6 772], [2001 SCC CRI 1273], [2001 OLR 2 648], [2001 ALD CRI 2 634], [2001 AWC SC 4 2998], [2001 ACR SC 3 2486], [2001 DMC SC 2 544], [2002 ALT CRI 1 69]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1386675/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad9ce4b0149711411daa


 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami State Amendment | Leave a comment

Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif on 11 May 2011

Posted on January 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A Hindu woman who had converted to Islam and got 2 kids from a muslim husband, after he divorced her via Triple Talaq, re-converted to Hinduism and married this Pilot. Once Pilot realized the conversion and re-conversion episode, he filed for Nullity petition. At Supreme Court, it was held that, the woman was properly divorce from first marriage and was a Hindu, by the time of her marriage, so nullity was denied.

Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif on 11 May 2011

Citations: [(2011 RCR CIVIL SC 3 640], [2011 SCC 6 139], [2011 JT 14 530], [2011 SCALE 5 601], [2011 AIR SC 2053], [2011 SUPREME 4 57], [2011 ANJ SC 2 61], [2011 AIOL 373], [2011 SCC CIV 3 234], [2011 ALR 86 902], [2011 CTC 4 783], [2011 LW 4 840], [2012 CUTLT 113 193], [2011 AIR SC 3142], [2011 MAHLJ 5 176], [2011 MPLJ 4 28], [2011 AIC 102 47], [2011 GUJLR 3 2006], [2011 CHN 3 11], [2011 ALD SC 5 51], [2011 AWC SC 4 4282], [2012 CLT SC 113 193], [2011 DMC SC 2 400], [2011 GLR 3 2006], [2011 JCR SC 3 280], [2011 KLJ 2 16], [2011 MHLJ 5 176], [2011 MLJ SC 7 827], [2011 OLR SC 2 108], [2011 RLW SC 3 2683]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/731156/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af00e4b0149711415503


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 Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif HM Act 11 - Void marriages Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Nullity Petition Dismissed Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil on 06 March 2019

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The husband did a ‘Marriage deed’ (whatever that means) separation with his first wife and married the second woman.

13.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that the appellant filed the marriage petition for a declaration to declare her marriage with the respondent as null and void on the ground that, at the time of their marriage, the first marriage of the respondent with his first wife was subsisting; that the  respondent committed a fraud and suppressed the material fact of his first marriage, and in fact, in the registration form he stated himself to be a bachelor.

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil on 06 March 2019

Citations: [(2019) SCC Online SC 329]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163532688/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c8148999eff4345648def96


 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision HM Act 11 - Lied on Registration Form HM Act 11 - Void marriages Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Non-Reportable Judgement or Order Nullity Petition Allowed Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil | Leave a comment

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice R.Banumathi has delivered this wonderful judgment in a false DV Case, holding that,

9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant No.14 is the husband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.4, 6 and 10 are the wives of appellants No.3, 5 and 9  respectively. Appellants No.7 and 8 are the parents of appellant No.1. Appellants No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai. Appellants No.7 to 10 are the residents of State of Rajasthan and appellants No.11 to 13 are the residents of State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and appellant No.1 has been at Chennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the respondent and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are averments of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of appellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held  responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case against the other appellants No.3 to 13. Since there are no specific allegations against appellants No.3 to 13, the criminal case of domestic violence against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed.

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

The Lower High Court judgment in the DV Case is here that got quashed in Supreme Court.

The liar filed a false 498A IPC case also on all 14 accused. Except husband and In-laws, the false case on all 11 others got quashed at Karnataka High Court here.


Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 65], [2020 SCC 3 14], [2020 SCC CRI 1 722], [2020 AIR SC 762], [2020 KLT 1 666], [2020 KLJ 1 799]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41851528/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e2a8c723321bc23c21105d2

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/shyamlal-devda-and-others-versus-parimala


The Index of these cases is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed PWDV Act Sec 12 - Inquire Prima Facie DV Before Issuing Notice to Respondents Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 22 February, 2001

Posted on January 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment, Supreme Court of India had formulated the following procedure while questions are put to witness during cross-examination. Also, per 138 Evidence Act, ‘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.‘.

It has been held that, where admissibility of document is objected then the Court should tentatively mark the document as an exhibit and can determine the objections at the last stage in the final judgment. But, while holding so, the Apex Court carved an exception regarding admissibility of a document where objection is based on deficient stamp duty, then the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further.
In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 1631 for the proposition that no act of Court shall harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Court to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court, he should be restored to the position he would have occupied.

Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 22 February, 2001

Citations: [2001 ACR SC 1 8], [2001 SCC 3 1], [2001 SUPREME 2 65], [2001 CRILJ 1254], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 452], [2001 UC 1 471], [2001 PLJR 2 132], [2001 GLH 2 545], [2001 SCR 2 29], [2001 CRLJ SC 1254], [2001 SCC CRI 417], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 1 859], [2002 LW CRL 1 115], [2001 ELT SC 134 611], [2001 CGLJ 1 366], [2001 ECC 74 287], [2001 RLW SC 1 169], [2001 UJ SC 1 573], [2001 AIR SC 1158], [2001 JT 3 120], [2001 SCALE 2 167], [2001 AIR SC 841], [2001 CRIMES SC 1 288], [2001 GLR 3 168], [2001 OLR 1 428], [2001 ALD CRI 1 548]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/372318/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad94e4b0149711411c07


AP High Court passed a judgment based on this case law here. Recent Bombay High Court judgment is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and Anr CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings 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 Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Objections During Witness Cross Examination Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922

Posted on January 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court holds that,

“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.“

and,

The Indian Penal Code defines the offence and also states what matters will afford a defence, and therefore it may be said that this Code deals specifically with the question, and it follows that the Court is not entitled to invoke the Common Law of England in the matter at all.

 

Indian Law Reports version:

Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922 ILR

Casemine version:

Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922 Casemine

Citations: [(1923) ILR 46 Bom 605], [A. I. R. (10) 1923 Mad. 523 (F. B.)],

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/338846/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5721afa7607dba2e3c8879c8


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 Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Codified Law Takes Precedence Over Common Law of England Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes

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

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

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
exsecular

exsecular

Verified account @exsecular ·
24 Oct

Aaj ka gyan ..

Reply on Twitter 2113863679263580543 Retweet on Twitter 2113863679263580543 28 Like on Twitter 2113863679263580543 108 X 2113863679263580543
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
mrhyperreddy

పల్నాడు పెద్దిరెడ్డి

@mrhyperreddy ·
24 Oct

తిలక్ - నువ్వు కాల్ ఇవ్వలేదు
నితీష్ - నువ్వు వచ్చేసేయ్ నేను వచ్చేస్తా ఆరాంసే

తిలక్ - రేయ్ రెండు అని చెప్పురా పోనీ

ఎంత బాగుందో
ఇంటర్నేషనల్ మ్యాచ్ లో తెలుగులో మాట్లాడుకుంటుంటే 😍

Reply on Twitter 2113958622615232589 Retweet on Twitter 2113958622615232589 2204 Like on Twitter 2113958622615232589 17035 X 2113958622615232589
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
drsjaishankar

Dr. S. Jaishankar

Verified account @drsjaishankar ·
23 Oct

Paid a visit to the historic Ateshgah fire temple in Baku.

A symbol of the historical and cultural connect between our two peoples.

🇮🇳 🇦🇿

Reply on Twitter 2113680108695195986 Retweet on Twitter 2113680108695195986 1770 Like on Twitter 2113680108695195986 16241 X 2113680108695195986
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jspbvmnaresh

JSP Naresh

Verified account @jspbvmnaresh ·
24 Oct

ఎప్పుడైనా కానీ మోడీ గారు ముస్లింని ఖతం చేస్తా అన్నాడా లేదు కదా..
అయినా
ఒక్కసారి అయినా మోడీకి ఓటు వేస్తారా ముస్లింలు. అలాంటిది రాహుల్ గాంధీ హిందువులని హిందూ వాదులని దేశం నుంచి తరిమియాలని 100 సార్లు అన్నారు అయినా హిందువులు వాడికి ఓట్లు వేస్తున్నారు.వాడి చెప్పులు నాకుతూ

Reply on Twitter 2113909101835243981 Retweet on Twitter 2113909101835243981 400 Like on Twitter 2113909101835243981 1064 X 2113909101835243981

Recent Posts

  • Orders on Interim Maintenance Applications under various laws October 24, 2026
  • Rama Vs Sandeep Purkayastha and Anr on 01 May 2025 October 24, 2026
  • Mahima Vs Ved Prakash Patel on 27 May 2024 October 24, 2026
  • Rakesh Sharma Vs Manju Devi and Ors on 12 May 2026 October 24, 2026
  • Brijesh Rajkumar Suri Vs Navita Brijesh Suri on 16 Sep 2026 October 20, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,240 views)
  • Application for Exemption from Personal Appearance During Investigation – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,133 views)
  • Application for Modification of Bail Conditions – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,026 views)
  • Exemption Application Under Section 205 CrPC – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (956 views)
  • Representation for Deletion of Name from FIR – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (951 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (881 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Criminal Writ Petition Before a High Court (825 views)
  • Dr. Garima Dubey and Ors Vs Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey on 21 Apr 2026 - Judgement Summary (774 views)
  • Surety Affidavit Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template (767 views)
  • Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy (720 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (451)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (435)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (390)Landmark Case (390)1-Judge Bench Decision (384)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (303)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (72)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (63)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (772)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 (193)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (168)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (96)Legal Procedure/Tool (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (60)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (55)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (45)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • Aman Kumar on Case Lifecycle Explorer – BNS s.85, DV Act and Maintenance
  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation

Archives of SoK

  • October 2026 (16)
  • September 2026 (13)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • 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 feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • AMD (Ahmedabad) on 2026-11-02 November 2, 2026
    Oct 8, 16:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AMD (Ahmedabad) datacenter between 2026-11-02 21:00 and 2026-11-03 01:00 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 in the affected region. For PNI / CNI customers […]
    Cloudflare Status

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 35.236.155.255 | S October 24, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 11 | First: 2026-10-24 | Last: 2026-10-24
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 269 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel