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: Legal Procedure Explained – Interpretation of Statutes

Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010

Posted on April 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has settled the following question of law:

the question of inheritance of co-parcenery property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in-relationship, could not arise.

Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010

Citations: [2010 AIR SCC 2685], [2010 AIR SCC 0 3503], [2010 CTC 3 654], [2010 JT 5 534], [2010 RCR CIVIL 3 252], [2010 SCCC 11 483], [2010 AD 6 478], [2010 SCC 0 515], [2010 SCCJ 5 442], [2010 ALT 5 4], [2010 LW 4 791], [2010 MLJ 7 953], [2010 SLT 4 419], [2010 AIOL 333], [2010 SCALE 6 53], [2010 SUPREME 4 433], [2010 SCCC CIV 4 498], [2010 AIC 91 54], [2010 CALLJ 2 176], [2010 ALR 81 230]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1513913/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee7e4b0149711415176


This is contradicted (but NOT overruled) in Revanasiddappa And Another v. Mallikarjun And Others here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CPC 200 - Second Appeal Evidence Act 112 - Birth During Marrige Conclusive Proof of Legitimacy HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act 5 - Conditions for a Hindu Marriage Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors | Leave a comment

Mangayarkarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020

Posted on April 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court said that, acquittal from a false criminal case…

From Para 15,

15. It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made and  the husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without  basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such  circumstance if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground.

Mangayakarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39962638/


Index of Divorce Judgments here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Baseless charges Against Spouse is Cruelty Filing False Criminal Complaints causes Mental Cruelty Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Mangayarkarasi Vs M Yuvraj Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Circus feats of the YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh

Posted on April 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A curated list of mangled-up decisions of incumbent YCP Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and the consequences suffered by public thereof and how Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals of this Great Nation did their best to protect State of Andhra Pradesh and it’s people. For legal litigation against incumbent Chief Minister in his personal capacity, go here.

Disclaimer: These are many more which I may not be aware of or may not have details to capture on this page. If you want to share such information, please use the Contact me page.

 

1. Destruction of Prajaa Vedika

 

2. Review of Power Purchase Agreements

 

 

3. Reduction of Z+ category security cover for Opposition Leader N. Chandrababu Naidu

 

4. Reverse Tendering in Polavaram HydroPower Project Contract

 

 

5. Disclose Government Stand on Swiss Challenge

 

 

6. Failure in Transferring of Lands to Bundar Port

 

 

7. Give reasons for removal of Agricultural Market Yard Chairmen

 

 

8. Direction to APERC to finalize Power prices

 

 

9. Decision by Executive Council in contrary to Universities Act

 

 

10. What is action taken by Government when School uniforms and text books are sold for inflated prices?

 

 

11. What is the Government policy to allocate Government lands to Private individuals and Organizations?

 

 

12. Notices to Botsa and Buggana on the Committee regd Capital Amaravati

 

 

13. Not conducting Panchayat Elections even after High Court directions

Finalize reservations before Jan 7th 2PM and share with SEC

BC reservations reduced to 24% from 34%

 

 

14. Basis/norm for giving payment for Pasters, Imams and Mauzans

 

 

15. Cannot dissolve Temple Boards as per Government wish

 

 

16. Why payments to Solar and Tidal Power Generation companies are pending?

  • High Court says, APSPDCL should immediately Pay the pending dues to Solar, Tidal Power Generation companies, as committed to them to be paid in 4 weeks here.

 

 

17. Liquor Prohibition

  1. Bars reduced from 840 to 530. Madya vimochana Prachara Committee. Not sure how much of public funds are grabbed under this guise. Fake brands. Exponential rates.
  2. Why no reduction in retail liquor business in AP in Prohibition is target? What is the reason for reducing bars? 04-12-2019
  3. Why advance notice not issued to Bar owners before reducing them?
  4. Stay on Old Bar licenses and Issue of New Licenses

 

 

 

18. YCP Colors to Panchayat Buildings

    • Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020 [WP(PIL) allowed by AP High Court]
    • State of AP Vs Muppa Venkateswara Rao on 23 March 2020 [SLP dismissed by Supreme Court]
    • G.O. Ms. No. 623 [Guidelines on Colour combination theme for painting of Gram Panchayat Buildings; Attempted Disguising Technique: Colours representing Various revolutions]
    • Suryadevara Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 05 May 2020 [High Court suspended the G.O. Ms. No.623 and it’s implementation]
      • Final Order here. [G.O. Ms. No.623 is quashed]
    • State of AP Vs Suryadevara Venkata Rao on 03 June 2020 [Supreme Court dumped the Civil Appeal against above High Court Judgment]

 

 

19. Mandatory English medium in School Education system

    • High Court: Will recover funds spent on Printing Academic books, running of classes from responsible officers.
    • Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 15 April 2020 [G.O Issued by Govt of Andhra Pradesh is held to by lacking total application of mind]
    • G.O. Ms. No.20 [Collect feedback from Parents of Children regd their preference for Medium of Instruction in all Government schools in the State – Dt 21 April 2020; Attempted Disguising Technique: Parents will choose English this time as their preferred medium of teaching for their children]
    • Supreme Court

 

20. How can you appoint In-charge Chairman where is an incumbent Chariman for APPSC?

  • No one interferes in the duties of APPSC Chairman Uday Bhaskar

 

 

21. Damodar Naidu has qualifications to become V.C. Dismissal of Petitions challenging his appointment

 

 

22. Suspension of Jasthi Krishna Kishore

 

 

23. First installment of Rs. 1845 Crores received under NREGS for 2019-20 from Central Government not deposited into Gram Panchayats. Deposit within 1 month.

 

 

 

24. Three Capital Cities for Andhra Pradesh

  1. Why impose section 144 CrPC on peacefully agitating farmers for Amaravati?
  2. Why violence was unleashed on women protesters and no women police to apprehend them?
  3. No movement of Government offices from Amaravati until the petitions about Capital city are pending. If moved, State Government and Department Officials will be liable for consequences and spent amount will be recovered from personal pockets.
  4. Submit all reports from GN Rao Committee and BCG.
  5. Andhra Pradesh to have 3 Capital cities (Kurnool-Judicial Capital, Visakhapatnam-Administrative/Executive Capital and Amaravathi-Legislative Capital)
    • Bill #1
    • Bill #2
    • Troubling farmers here.
  6. Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi challenged the Trifurcation of State in the guise of decentralized development/administration here.
    • State went to Supreme Court here on the Status Quo granted. How desparately irresponsible!!
    • Additionally, fandogs went to supreme court and got nice buttslaps here.
  7. Insider Trading Allegations case
    • Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 19 Jan 2021
      • State of AP Vs Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Ors on 19 Jul 2021 (Supreme Court crushed the Petition!)

 

25. Revoke the GO pertaining to the appointment of EO for Sri Durgamalelswara Swamy temple, Vijayawada

 

 

 

26. YS Vivekananda Reddy Murder case

  • What are the objections in entrusting YS Vivekananda Reddy murder case to CBI? YS Jagan reddy himself demanded for CBI investigation while being a Opposition Leader. What is your current stand after coming to Power now?

 

 

 

27. GVMC Elections

  • When is the election notification for GVMC going to be announced?

 

 

 

 

28. Photos of YS Jagan Reddy on Panchayat Buildings

  • No photo of PM in Parliament, No Chief Justice photo in High Court. But why CM Photo on Panchayat Buildings? [Investigate these case laws: https://www.casemine.com/search/in/Common%20Cause%20advertisements%20public%20funds]

 

 

 

29. Navaratnaalu – Pedalaku illu

  1. High Court: Can not give Amaravati lands to landless poor. No one side game like this allowed.
  2. How can you grab lands of poor? Assigned lands turned into House sites? Grab from one poor and dole out to another? KVPS Writ
  3. Trying to Grab Kakinada Mangrove forest area. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: to construct homes for poor
    • Another set of cases here.
  4. Converting Poramboke lands into Assessed Waste lands in Kadapa. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: to grant house sites to poor
  5. Land grab in East Godavavi District. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: To construct Gram Sachivalayam, Raithu Bharosa Kendram, YSR Clinic
  6. Attempt to allot lands to people from Economically Weaker Sections out side Amaravati region here.
    • Summary dismissal at Supreme Court here.

 

 

 

30. Funds released under Central Employment Scheme

  • Why funds released under Central Employment Scheme for the year 2018-19 to the tune of Rs. 1134 Cr not disbursed?

 

 

 

31. Obstructing the peaceful tour of N Chandrababu Naidu in Vizag

  • DGP to be present in Court and give explanation how can notice be issued under section 151 CrPC.
  • Under what authority/rule was the notice under 151 CrPC issued to NCBN
  • Why no action is taken on officers who issues illegal notice under section 151 CrPC?

 

 

 

32. Withdrawal by MNCs

 

 

33. Trying to sell away Government Property

–

 

 

 

34. All TDP schemes renamed to YSR/Jagananna Schemes

NTR Vaidya seva Trust into YSR Arogya Sri

 

 

35. Shutter Down to Anna Canteens

 

 

36. Attempting to Abolish the Legislative Council of AP

 

 

37. Sand mining

 

 

38. Removal of L.V. Subramanyam

 

 

39. Non implementation of Disha Act

 

 

 

40. Special Status to AP

 

 

 

 

 

41. Decision of State Election Commissioner to postpone Panchayat Elections in AP by 6 weeks due to Pandemic nCOVID-19 (Coronavirus outbreak)

    • State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020 [Supreme Court did not interfere with the Decision of SEC to postpone Panchayat elections]
    • Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 2020 Promulgated on 10 April 2020 [Via this Ordinance, Rules were framed reducing SEC tenure from 6 years to 3 and making retired Judges only criteria to become a SEC, both squarely targetted to get Shri, Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar out of SEC role and engage Sri Justice V.Kanagaraj, Retired High Court Judge, as SEC of A.P State Election Commission; Attempted Disguising Technique: Ordinance to reform SEC, not sack Ramesh]
      • The Ordinance No 5 of 2020 got quashed and along with it all other related GOs got kicked into drain, via [Dr N Ramesh Kumar IAS Vs State of AP on 29 May 2020].
      • State of AP Vs N Ramesh Kumar IAS and Ors [Supreme Court held that…]
      • State Election Commission also filed SLP which got tagged with above case here. So, no wastage of page for it.
    • N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020 [Contempt Proceedings initiated against Chief Secretary Nilam Sawhney and others]

 

42. Violation of Lockdown Norms of MLAs and Cabinet Ministers of the incumbent party

    • Kishore Para Vs State of AP []

 

43. Styrene Gas Leakage in Vizag (Visakhapatnam) on the early hours 3.35AM on 07 May 2020 from LG Polymers

    1. First AP High Court says this…
    2. Then National Green Tribunal directs the company to deposit 50 Crores first and further says this.
      1. NGT ordered to appropriate the above 50 Crores.
    3. Then Supreme Court stays  the above NGT Order regarding appropriating the 50 Crores deposited by LG Polymers here.

 

44. Sale of TTD properties donated by devotees

 

 

45. Suspense of AB Venkateshwara Rao (DG) IPS

  1. The DGP of AP Police was suspended but AP High Court reinstated him back into service here.
    1. The routine began and the SLP was filed at Supreme Court which granted a Stay on the operation of the Order of High Court here. 4 Lakhs was paid to the Legal team of a Senior Counsel and a AoR.

 

46. Lack of medical equipment for Corona Warrior such as PPE Kits

  • Harassment to Dr Sudhakar [Since he was not in CBI/Police Custody, he was ordered to be released from the Mental Hospital]
  • AP Police have brought in more illegal rules than those in Bihar.

 

 

47. Change in electricity slabs

 

48. Reduction in Government Pension Holders

 

 

49. Baseless Quid Pro Quo Allegation in Amaravati land dealings

 

 

 

50. Scam in purchase of COVID-19 kits

 

 

 

51. Pre-recorded and heavily Edited name-sake Press meets

 

 

 

52. Pension at 45 years only

 

 

 

53. Baseless Allegation of Chandrababu Naidu Benami

 

 

54. Baseless Allegation Kodi-katti

 

 

55. Baseless Allegation of SC/ST sub-plan funds diversion

 

 

56. Baseless Allegation of 100 Crores corruption in Pattiseema project

 

 

57. Baseless Allegation that Estimations are increased in Polavaram project (Allegation)

  1. Totally forgetting the above Baseless allegations vehemently trumpeted, request was sent to PM, begging to approve the estimates (yes, same estimates which were passed during NCBN tenure in 2017-18) here.

 

 

58. YCP Trolls (Incl MLA and MP) attack the Judges of AP High Court

  • High Court of Andhra Pradesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh [Trolling due to adverse order in English Medium case]

 

 

 

 

59. YCP MLA Alla Rama Krishna’s attempt to get TDP National Party Headquarters demolished

  • Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July 2020 [High Court questioned the Public interest in the PIL and dismissed it]

 

60. Delegation of powers to Secretaries of respective Departments to lodge complaints

  • GO is available here.

 

61. Filing of time-barred SLPs (invariably to spend public money on some benefactors)

Despite fully aware that the petition is hopelessly time-barred, SLPs are being filed at Supreme Court and Supreme clearly observed it and put it in it’s order for eternity here.

 

62. Usage of photographs of State Functionaries in Government-funded Advertisements

A PIL was filed seeking removal of Photos of Government functionaries such as CMs in Government-funded Advertisements here.

 

63. Appointment of N Harinath Reddy as Assistant Solicitor General for High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Adv Solomon Raju Manchala challenged the Appointment of N Harinath Reddy as Assistant Solicitor General for High Court of Andhra Pradesh here.

 

64. Depriving pregnant, Old women of pension

AP High Court Ordered the State government to make pension payments and ascertain the eligibility of the petitioners in Gram Sabha after giving opportunity to the petitioners here.

 

65. Filing of false cases for possession of liquor

AP High Court, while disposing a couple of writ petitions, has ordered the Government to implement G.O.No.411 in letter and spirit and the action of the State in registering the crime on the ground that the alcohol is brought into Andhra Pradesh from the neighboring State is held to be bad in law. Go here.

 

66. Baseless Criminal Cases on Journalists and Social Media

  1. A false case was registered by AP CID on Telugu One YouTube channel owner but High Court Quashed it with an elaborate lecture on what is Police duty (thereby what is NOT) here.

 

67. Baseless Criminal case of Ex-Attorney General

  1. A false case was registered against Ex Attorney General Dammalapati Srinivas here.
    • A Stay was granted against all further investigation and any coercive action on any of the alleged accused person.
  2. As usual, the stay was challenged in the Supreme Court here.

 

68. Tapping of Judges of AP High Court

  1. As the adverse orders against the ill-moves of State Govt are sky-rocketing on weekly basis, Govt seems to have stooped to Phone tapping of Judges. The case is here.
  2. High Court has scathing remarks against State Government to the tune of invoking Article 356 of Constitution of India… I am usre no better sense will prevail. Good for people of AP.

 

69. Land grabbing for Gannavaram Airport expansion, without paying Compensation to Land Owners

  1. State govt permitted Airports Authority of India (AAI) to proceed with expansion of Gannavaram airport without paying compensation for the land grabbed from
    • the veteran Cine Artist here.
    • the ace Cine Producer here.

 

70. Hounding of Thullur MRO Anne Sudheer Babu

For doing his duties, Thullur MRO Anne Sudheer Babu is being hounded fruitlessly.

  • AP HC had stayed all the proceedings until further order here.
  • As usual, the junta went to SC and got a favorable Order here. Or so minions think and celebrated.

 

71. Demolition of Property of GITAM University

Suddenly, the District administration wakes up to the fact that certain portion of the land in use by the GITAM University was unauthorized and decides to demolish in the early dead night hours on 24th October, 2020

  • Check out the proceedings here.

 

72. Arrest in violation of Arnesh Kumar judgment (41A CrPC)

For a facebook post, Jangala Sambasiva Rao was booked and arrested in just a day and the bozo Magistrate granted Remand too. High Court held that both Police and Magistrate violated the landmark precedent in Arnesh Kumar judgment and demanded reports from both here.

 

73. Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam

In a sly attempt to shift Executive Capital from Amaravati to Visakhapatnam, the State Government transferred 30 Acres from Greyhounds to Collector Visakhapatnam. High Court on a PIL, demanded Govt to produce complete set of plans before beginning alienation of lands here.

 

75. Review of all decisions taken by TDP Government

  • Varla Ramaiah garu filed a Writ in AP HC here and obtained an interim stay on the operation of G.O.Rt.No. 1411 Dt 26.06.2019 and G.O.Rt.No. 344 Dt 21.02.2020
  • State Government went to Supreme Court here.

 

76. Kidnaps of Public by Police – Multiple Habeas Corpus Petitions

There are multiple habeas corpus petitions filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which alarmed the High Court and it wanted to check on the aspect of ‘breakdown of Constitutional machinery” under Article 356 of Constitution.

  1. Case 1 : Reddi Govinda Rao Vs State of AP and Ors here.
    • Supreme Court stayed the Order of AP High Court here.
  2. Case 2 : Rayidi Naga Lakshmi and Anr Vs State of AP and Ors here.

 

77. Sale of Government lands in the name of Mission Build AP

A PIL was filed to stay the same of government lands in a namesake scam called as Mission Build AP here.

 

78. Decision of State Election Commissioner to conduct Panchayat Elections in AP as the Pandemic nCOVID-19 (Coronavirus outbreak) subsided phenomenally in Andhra Pradesh.

  1. State Government got a stay on the Elections Schedule here from a single-judge bench.
    • Division bench set it aside here.
  2. The cabal, reportedly, went to Supreme Court here and got a facepalm, again.

 

79. Passing of Privilege Motion in AP Assembly against State Election Commissioner Sri Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar for his letter/communication to AP Governor seeking action against rabid legislators who attacked SEC.

  1. Some Legislators got loose motions on the action being taken by SEC and vomit in press meets. SEC brought it to the notice of Governor via a Letter. This letter leaked to press. The Rabids got butt-hurt and moved a Privilege motion in Assembly (emailed it to Speaker). They seem to be depending on a Bombay High Court verdict in Nandlal case here.

 

80. SEC passed Order House Arresting an Advisor to Govt and prohibition on speaking with Media

  1. One of the many advisors was misusing his position to influence the officials working on Election duty so State Election Commissioner took him to task here.

 

 

81. Arrest of MP RaghuRama Krishnam Raju

  1. The Rebel MP of the YSRC Party was arrested on his birthday May 14th and was, as expected, tortured by the AP CID Police; Suo moto contempt proceedings initiated by AP High Court for not following the HC orders, news here.
  2. Later Supreme Court granted bail to him here.

 

82. MPTC, ZPTC Elections

  1. The Notification issued by the pet SEC of the the State Government was set aside a Single Judge Bench here.

 

83. Harassment to Anandaiah B who prepared and administered Ayurvedic medicine for COVID-related/induced difficulties

  1. AP High Court provided relief to Mr. Ananadaiah who was being harassed by the Police of AP here.

 

84. Punishment for headstrong Government Officials under Contempt of Court Act

  1. On 23 Jun 2021, AP High Court punished two officials (Panchayat Raj Commissioner Girija Shankar and horticulture commissioner Chiranjeevi Chowdary) of Government of AP, news here but later revised it to only fine news here and here.
  2. On 23 Jul 2021, AP High Court issued NBWs (non-bailable arrest warrants) against two IAS officials (Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj) Gopala Krishna Dwivedi and BC Welfare department special chief secretary G Anantaramu) who were earlier part of Government of AP, news here.
  3. On 24 Jul 2021, AP High Court issued NBW to Finance Secretary Satyanarayana along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- but later fined only Rs.10/- and suspended the punishment, news here.
  4. On 02 Sep 2021, AP High Court punished 5 IAS officers (Manmohan Singh, Seshagiri babu, S S Rawat, Mutyla Raju) for contempt of Court along with fines news here.

 

85. Looting of natural resources

  1. On 26 Jul 2021, National Green Tribunal orders issuance of notices to the Looters of bauxite here.

 


Just a footer… :0)

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Government Antics Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr on 16 December 1988

Posted on April 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Writ Petition filed by one Kehar Singh who was accused and convicted for the consipracy and murder of Indira Gandhi on the following questions.

1. Whether there is justification for the view that when exercising his powers under Art. 72 the President is precluded from entering into the merits of a case decided finally by this Court.

2. To what areas does the power to scrutinise extend?

3. Whether judicial review extends to an examination of the order passed by the President under Art. 72 of the Constitution.

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an oral hearing from the President on his petition invoking the powers under Article 72.

Supreme Courts answers as,

We are of the view that it is open to the President in the exercise of the power vested in him by Art. 72 of the Constitution to scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and sentence imposed on, the accused. In doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The judicial record remains intact, and  undisturbed. The president acts in a wholly different plane from that in which the Court acted. He acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it. And this is so, notwithstanding that the practical effect of the Presidential act is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or to remit the sentence imposed on him.

and…

It is apparent that the power under Art. 72 entitles the President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and to determine for himself whether the case is one deserving the grant of the relief falling within that power. We are of opinion that the President is entitled to go into the merits of the case notwithstanding that it has been judicially concluded by the consideration given to it by this Court.

Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr on 16 December 1988

Citations: [1988 SUPP SCR 3 1102], [1989 SCC 1 204], [1989 SCALE 1 242], [1988 SCR SUPL 3 1102], [1989 MPJR SC 10], [1989 CRLJ SC 941], [1989 CRILJ 941], [1988 SCALE 2 1565], [1988 SCR SUPP 3 1102], [1989 AIR SC 653], [1989 CRIMES SC 1 238], [1989 PLJR 23], [1989 SCC CRI 86], [1988 JT 4 693]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152284/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aac9e4b014971140afa4


Disclaimer:

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

I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 5-Judge Constitutional Bench Decision Article 72 of The Constitution of India Indira Gandhi Murder Case Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Operation Blue Star Reportable Judgement or Order Sensational Or Peculiar Cases | Leave a comment

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Posted on April 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice A.K.Sikri in a 2-judge bench had held that, for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman (who is not a legally wedded wife), is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

From Para 25,

25. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon’s Case[11] which became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Citations: [2014 SCJ 2 779], [2014 CRILJ 1076], [2014 SCC 1 188], [2013 SCALE 12 681], [2014 CRLJ SC 1076], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 764], [2013 CTC 6 86], [2014 AIR SC 256], [2014 NCC 1 238], [2013 RLW SC 4 3670], [2013 AIOL 3407], [2013 AD SC 11 9], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 830], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 946], [2014 JLJR SC 1 78], [2014 LW CRL 1 646], [2014 SCC CIV 1 51], [2013 JCC SC 4 2765], [2014 LW 2 936], [2013 ACR 3 3010], [2014 MPHT 2 499], [2014 GLH 1 273], [2013 KERLT 4 367], [2013 ALR 101 704], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 616], [2013 SLT 9 543], [2013 DMC 3 518], [2014 ECRN 1 241], [2014 AIR SC 869], [2013 JT 13 570], [2013 AIC 132 108]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15901386/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af37e4b0149711415daf


Earlier Chanmuniya judgment is here.


 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - No Strict Proof of Marriage Required CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Women In Live-In Relationships Entitled To Maintenance Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru on 7 January 2020

Posted on April 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K.M.Joesph from a 2-judge bench, held the following principles while deciding a discharge petition file u/s 227 CrPC. Also Governing principles regarding permissibility of defence of accused or documents produced by him, summarized.

i. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.
ii. The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
iii. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the Police or the documents produced before the Court.
iv. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”.
v. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
vi. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
vii. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
viii. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused.

M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru on 7 January 2020

Citations: [(2020) 2 SCC 768]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151468802/ or


Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 227 - Discharge Rejected Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs State Of Maharashtra Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru P.Vijayan Vs State Of Kerala and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order Union Of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr | Leave a comment

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

Posted on April 3, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

3-Judge Full Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (as he was at Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court) declared the following reference in affirmative,

“Whether writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by Power of Attorney holder?”

Safeguards

Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following:
(1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application;
(2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and
(3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge.

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

Earlier Reference Order

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 02 December 2015

Citations: [2016 AWC 2 1525], [2016 LCD 34 373], [2016 AIR ALL 52]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114640689/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4a5e691cb26fc4d9447


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 Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Power of Attorney Reportable Judgement or Order Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors | Leave a comment

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

An obiter dictum of this Court may be binding only on the High Courts in the absence of a direct pronouncement on that question elsewhere by this Court. But as far as this Court is concerned, though not binding, it does have clear persuasive authority.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007

Citations: [2007 KLT SUPP 3 18], [2007 SCR 4 641], [2007 JCC 2 1280], [2007 WBLR 3 264], [2007 TNMAC 2 9], [2007 SCJ 3 498], [2007 GLR 3 2356], [2007 SCC CR 2 527], [2007 ILR KER 3 569], [2007 AIR SC 0 2362], [2007 MPHT 3 1], [2007 COMPCAS 137 116], [2007 SCC 5 428], [2007 ALLLJ 3 596], [2007 ALLSCR 0 1697], [2007 MLJ 2 1230], [2007 ALD 3 99], [2007 SUPREME 3 136], [2007 AIR KAR R 3 437], [2007 ACC 4 335], [2007 AIOL 359], [2007 SCALE 5 269], [2007 TAC 2 417], [2007 SCC CRI 2 527], [2007 SLT 9 251], [2007 AIR SC 1609], [2007 ACJ 0 1284], [2007 JT 5 65], [2008 LW 1 838], [2007 ANWR 1 545]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1964308/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae62e4b0149711413b05


Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Obiter Dicta Reportable Judgement or Order The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors | Leave a comment

Sarwan Singh Lamba and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 May 1995

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

Para 17,

Normally even an obiter dictum is expected to be obeyed and followed.

TruePrint Version

TP_1995_4_scc_546_561_sandeeppamarati_gmailcom_20200320_233725

Citations: [1995 JT 5 386], [1995 AIR SC 1729], [1995 SCALE 3 457], [1995 SCC 4 546], [1995 SCC L&S 1064], [1995 ATC 30 585], [1995 BLJR 2 1295], [1995 SUPP SCR 1 427], [1995 SLJ SC 3 72], [1995 UPLBEC 2 1215]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538878/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acc5e4b014971140fb0f


Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots 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 Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Obiter Dicta Reportable Judgement or Order Sarwan Singh Lamba and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors | Leave a comment

MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001

Posted on March 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held the scope of 205 CrPC in this judgment as,

Second is that it is difficult, in the absence of other materials, to decide positively whether the order dated 28.4.2000 is an interlocutory order only.
The interdict contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) is that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at the interlocutory stage. The safe test laid down by this Court through a series of decisions is this: If the contention of the petitioner who moves the superior court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If it would,then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage.

And

Section 251 is the commencing provision in Chapter XX of the Code which deals with trial of summons cases by magistrates. It enjoins on the court to ask the accused whether he pleads guilty when the accused appears or is brought before the magistrate. The appearance envisaged therein can either be by personal attendance of the accused or through his advocate. This can be understood from Section 205(1) of the Code which says that whenever a magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.
17. Thus, in appropriate cases the magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel. The magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when his counsel makes such plea on behalf of the accused in a case where the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with. Section 317 of the Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it empowers the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a counsel in that case) even for proceeding with the further steps in the case. However, one precaution which the court should take in such a situation is that the said benefit need be granted only to an accused who gives an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, and that a counsel on his behalf would be present in court and that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. This precaution is necessary for the further progress of the proceedings including examination of the witnesses.

“18. A question could legitimately be asked – what might happen if the counsel engaged by the accused (whose personal appearance is dispensed with) does not appear or that the counsel does not co-operate in proceeding with the case? We may point out that the legislature has taken care for such eventualities. Section 205(2) says that the magistrate can in his discretion direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings. The last limb of Section 317(1) confers a discretion on the magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any subsequent  stage of the proceedings. He can even resort to other steps for enforcing such attendance.

“19. The position, therefore, bogs down to this: It is within the powers of a magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations to him, and the comparative advantage would be less. Such discretion need be exercised only in rare instances where due to the far distance at which the accused resides or carries on business or on account of any  physical or other good reasons the magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused would only be in the interests of justice. However, the magistrate who grants such benefit to the accused must take the precautions enumerated above, as a matter of course. We may reiterate that when an accused makes an application to a magistrate through his duly authorised counsel praying for affording the benefit of his personal presence being dispensed with the magistrate can consider all aspects and pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding further.”

Ms Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs Ms Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001

Citations: [2001 INSC 399], [2001 KHC 0 714], [2001 AIR SC 3625], [2001 UC 2 370], [2001 AD SC 6 612], [2001 SCC 6 339], [2001 AWC SC 4 2981], [2001 CRI LJ 4250], [2001 JIC 2 685], [2001 MPLJ 3 664], [2001 SUPREME 6 339], [2001 AIR SC 0 3413], [2001 JCC 2 127], [2001 ACR SC 3 2297], [2001 KERLT 3 307], [2001 JT SC 7 127], [2001 SCC 7 401], [2001 CRIMES SC 4 199], [2002 PLJR 4 95], [2002 MAHLJ 1 81], [2002 BOMCR CRI SC 190], [2002 BOMCR SC 2 265], [2002 ALT CRI 1 13], [2001 RCR CRI 4 137], [2003 JLJ SC 1 56], [2001 SCALE 5 503], [2001 CRLJ 0 4250], [2001 S SCR 2 219], [2001 SCC CR 0 1254], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 4 137], [2001 DCR SC 602], [2001 OLR 2 613], [2002 LJ 1 161], [2001 CCR 0 208], [2001 SRJ 8 415], [2001 CRLR SC 0 481], [2001 SCC CRI 0 1254], [2001 CALCRILR 0 481], [2001 SLT 6 120], [2001 CCR 3 208], [2001 ALLMR CRI 0 1961], [2001 SCJ 3 176], [2002 BCR 2 265], [2002 MHLJ SC 1 81], [2001 ALD CRI 2 530], [2002 BCR CRI 0 190]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1255592/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad9ce4b0149711411db4

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 205 – Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused CrPC 397(2) - Revision Not Exercised in Any Interlocutory Order Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd and Ors Reportable Judgement or Order | 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
vipintalwar vipin talwar @vipintalwar ·
12 Jun

Adani's Green Transformation Is Visible from the Ground Up

Tree plantation drives are common. Achieving an 88% survival rate is not.

At PEKB, the high survival rate means the restoration is not just happening on paper... it's creating real forests, real biodiversity, and real

Reply on Twitter 2065309482964697362 Retweet on Twitter 2065309482964697362 65 Like on Twitter 2065309482964697362 78 X 2065309482964697362
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ratansharda55 Ratan Sharda 🇮🇳 रतन शारदा @ratansharda55 ·
12 Jun

Bravo @navikakumar

Reply on Twitter 2065395655284338898 Retweet on Twitter 2065395655284338898 93 Like on Twitter 2065395655284338898 363 X 2065395655284338898
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
hindujagrutiorg HinduJagrutiOrg @hindujagrutiorg ·
12 Jun

Amazon Insults Aryabhata

Aryabhata gave the world ZERO.
Amazon gave him ZERO respect.

Turning Bharat's greatest mathematician into a marketing prop for "zero fees" is not creativity, it's cultural insult.

@amazonIN Apologise. Withdraw the ad. Respect India's civilisational

Reply on Twitter 2065269861383835852 Retweet on Twitter 2065269861383835852 368 Like on Twitter 2065269861383835852 441 X 2065269861383835852
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
its_the_dr Johnny Midnight ⚡️ @its_the_dr ·
12 Jun

That’s so true! George Carlin.

Reply on Twitter 2065238521929953768 Retweet on Twitter 2065238521929953768 191 Like on Twitter 2065238521929953768 572 X 2065238521929953768
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Cruelty as a Criminal Offence Explained June 12, 2026
  • Bail Compliance Undertaking Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template June 12, 2026
  • Warning Signs of Escalating Matrimonial Litigation – Early Red Flags Every Spouse Should Recognize June 12, 2026
  • Objections a Defence Advocate Can Raise When the Prosecution Produces Documentary Evidence – Complete Trial Strategy Guide June 5, 2026
  • How to File a Complaint Against an Advocate in India – A First-Timer’s Complete Guide June 5, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,904 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,427 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,287 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,723 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,111 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,948 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,875 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,706 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,619 views)
  • Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (1,498 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (411)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (381)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (362)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)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 (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (752)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (328)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (77)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)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 Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • 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)
  • ShadesOfKnife on Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (7)
  • 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

  • Scheduled Workers Platform Configuration Maintenance June 22, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 22, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC Jun 10, 20:16 UTC Scheduled - On 2026-06-22 from 12:00-13:00 UTC, Cloudflare will be performing scheduled maintenance on the data store responsible for Workers platform configuration. During this maintenance window, customers will be unable to make configuration changes for up to 3 minutes. This […]
  • Zero Trust Underlying Storage Maintenance June 18, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 18, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC Jun 12, 00:38 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for the backend storage system supporting Cloudflare One Client (WARP) / Zero Trust device management. Services will continue to operate normally. During a brief window of up to 3 minutes, device-related settings will be […]
  • ICN (Seoul) on 2026-06-17 June 17, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 17, 17:00 - 22:00 UTC Jun 4, 13:40 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2026-06-17 between 17:00 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 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 35.201.187.8 | S June 13, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 5 | First: 2025-10-28 | Last: 2026-06-13
  • 35.194.231.180 | S June 13, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 3 | First: 2026-06-13 | Last: 2026-06-13
  • 8.231.253.51 | S June 13, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4 | First: 2026-06-13 | Last: 2026-06-13
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 611 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel