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: Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 –

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Posted on August 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court gave this landmark reportable judgment regd delay condonation under Sec 5 of Limitation Act.

13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated
benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

 

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Citations: [2012 AIR SC 1506], [2012 ALR 91 879], [2012 AWC SC 3 2651], [2012 CALLT SC 3 65], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 20], [2012 CLT 113 1066], [2012 COMPCAS SC 174 387], [2012 CTC 2 240], [2012 ELT SC 277 289], [2012 GLH 1 670], [2012 ITR SC 348 7], [2012 JLJR 2 252], [2012 JCR SC 3 59], [2012 PLJR 2 371], [2012 RLW SC 3 2142], [2012 SCALE 2 782], [2012 SCC 3 563], [2013 SLJ SC 1 320], [2012 TAXMAN SC 207 163], [2012 SCC CIV 2 327], [2012 SCC CRI 2 580], [2012 SCC L&S 1 649], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 192], [2012 GUJ LH 1 670], [2012 AIC 112 69], [2012 CALLJ 2 93], [2012 CALLT 3 65], [2012 VST 54 188], [2012 SCT 2 269], [2012 SUPREME 2 244], [2012 CLT 1 338], [2012 AIR SC 0 1812], [2012 SCR 1 1045], [2012 SLT 2 312], [2012 JT 2 483], [2012 CHN SC 3 20], [2012 CCC 2 1], [2012 AIOL 103], [2012 SCC L&S 2 649], [2012 SCJ 3 873], [2012 SCC CR 2 580], [2012 LW 4 100], [2013 CPR 2 306], [2013 CPR 3 622], [2012 CUTLT 113 1066], [2012 SCR 0 500], [2012 TAXMANNCOM SC 20 347]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20289457/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af18e4b014971141598b

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Dismissed Due to Delay In Appeals Filed Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Vanka Radhamanohari Vs Vanka Venkata Reddy And Ors on 20 April 1993

Posted on February 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

6. At times it has come to our notice that many courts are treating the provisions of Section 468 and Section 473 of the Code as provisions parallel to the periods of limitation provided in the Limitation Act and the requirement of satisfying the court that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of that Act. There is a basic difference between Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 473 of the Code. For exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the onus is on the appellant or the applicant to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, whereas Section 473 enjoins a duty on the court to examine not only whether such delay has been explained but as to whether it is the requirement of the justice to condone or ignore such delay. As such, whenever the bar of Section 468 is applicable, the court has to apply its mind on the question, whether it is necessary to condone such delay in the interests of justice. While examining the question as to whether it is necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice, the Court has to take note of the nature of offence, the class to which the victim belongs, including the background of the victim. If the power under section 473 of the code is to be exercised in the interests of justice, then while considering the grievance by a lady, of torture, cruelty and inhuman treatment, by the husband and the relatives of the husband, the interest of justice requires a deeper examination of such grievances, instead of applying the rule of limitation and saying that with lapse of time the cause of action itself has come to an end. The general rule of limitation is based on the Latin maxim : vigilantibus, et non, dormientibus, jura subveniunt (the vigilant, and not the sleepy, are assisted by the laws). That maxim cannot be applied in connection with offences relating to cruelty against women.

7. It is true that the object of introducing Section 468 was to put a bar of limitation on prosecutions and to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as it was thought proper that after a long lapse of time, launching of prosecution may be vexatious, because by that time even the evidence may disappear. This aspect has been mentioned in the statement and object, for introducing a period of limitation, as well as by this Court in the case of State Of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh 1981 3 SCC 34. But, that consideration cannot be extended to matrimonial offences, where the allegations are of cruelty, torture and assault by the husband or other members of the family to the complainant. It is a matter of common experience that victim is subjected to such cruelty repeatedly and it is more or less like a continuing offence. It is only as a last resort that a wife openly comes before a court to unfold and relate the day-to-day torture and cruelty faced by her, inside the house, which many of such victims do not like to be made public. As such, courts while considering the question of limitation for an offence under Section 498-A i.e subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or the relative of her husband, should judge that question, in the light of section 473 of the code, which requires the Court, not only to examine as to whether the delay has been properly explained, but as to whether “it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice”.

 

Vanka Radhamanohari Vs Vanka Venkata Reddy And Ors on 20 April 1993

Citations: [1993 (2) BLJR 875], [1993 (2) Crimes 275 SC], [I (1994) DMC 172 SC], [JT 1993 (4) SC 17], [1993 (2) SCALE 570], [(1993) 3 SCC 4]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/849288/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8ce4b014971140f1d2

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 473 - Extension of period of limitation in certain cases Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Vanka Radhamanohari Vs Vanka Venkata Reddy And Ors | Leave a comment

Supreme Court and High Court Judgments to cite in Discharge (u/s 227 or 239) or Quash petition (u/s 482)

Posted on April 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list the Supreme Court of India judgments applicable to various legal grounds to go for Discharge u/s 227 or 239 or 245 and Quash u/s 482.

Included few High Court judgments too for reference. Read the individual judgments to find the operative text of the respective judgments.

There are quite a few legal grounds on the basis of which a case can be discharged at Magistrate/Sessions Court or Quashed (High Court and Supreme Court).

Note1: Read State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 to understand that during Quash proceedings at High Court, Evidence of Sterling/Unimpeachable Quality from Defence/Accused can be adduced to dismantle the case of Prosecution at Trial Court.)

Note2: Second 482 CrPC petition is maintainable as per Landmark judgment in ‘Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974‘.

Note3: A Petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable even when a Revision is available under 397/401 CrPC says, ‘Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharastra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008‘.

Note3: If you want to read this thread from beginning, go here.

No Jurisdiction Judgments

  1. Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999 (1999) 8 SCC 728
  2. Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004
  3. Manish Ratan And Others Vs State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006
  4. Sonu and others Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another on 10 October, 2007
  5. Bhura Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
  6. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012 (Includes delay in complaint, vague allegations)
  7. Sivangala Thandi Deepak & Others Vs The State of A.P. on 11 July 2014
  8. Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014
  9. Sudhir Mansinghka Vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 August, 2015
  10. Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015 (AP High Court judgment; Includes delay in complaint, perjury)
  11. G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
  12. Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017
  13. Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
  14. Yadwinder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018
  15. Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019 (Bad law: No territorial Jurisdiction is applicable in 498A IPC cases)

 

Vague and General Allegations

  1. MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997 (Complaint Case)
  2. Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998 (Complaint Case)
  3. B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003 (High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable cases also not listed under CrPC 320)
  4. Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009
  5. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
  6. Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012 (Scenarios when a criminal proceeding can be quashed)
  7. Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012
  8. Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014
  9. Sandeep Singh Bais Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2017
  10. Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018 [Chattisgarh HC: DV on relatives quashed who do not have shared household]
  11. Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 (AP High Court)
  12. Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019 (Telangana High Court: No evidence of Dowry Transaction)
  13. Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (Conviction of 498A IPC set aside due to settlement; Cites BS Joshi caselaw)
  14. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (498A IPC quashed due to General and Omnibus allegations)

 

Allegations do not attract provisions of Sections in FIR

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane on 19 March, 1975
  3. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489 [Inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution]
  4. Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18
  5. State Of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal on 21 November, 1990 [A set of subsequent case laws arose from this landmark judgment]
  6. Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2)
  7. V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 AIR 1994 SC 710
  8. State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219
  9. Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration and Anr on 31 July 1996
  10. Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121
  11. Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414
  12. Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078
  13. Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 (Delhi High Court)
  14. Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009 (Conviction under IPC 498A set aside)
  15. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  16. U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009 (Concubine is not a relative of husband)
  17. Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009 [Allegations do not attract 498A IPC ingredients]
  18. Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010
  19. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
  20. Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010
  21. S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
  22. Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
  23. Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
  24. Movva Raja Ram Vs State Of A.P. on 18 June, 2013
  25. State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014
  26. Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014 (Concubine is not a relative of husband; IPC 494 is not applicable on concubine)
  27. Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
  28. Gayathri Kunjithaya Vs State Of Kerala On 19 January 2015
  29. Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Overruled Appasaheb and Vipin Jaiswal]
  30. Dr. Rajneesh Satyadev Rajpurohit Vs Magistrate No.3 on 16 April, 2015
  31. Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016
  32. Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017 [Allegations do not attract 498A and 406 IPC ingredients]
  33. Subramani Vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 October, 2017 (Marriage should be there, to apply IPC 498A)
  34. K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018
  35. K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018
  36. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020 [allegations do not attract the provision of IPC 306; Separate FIRs Filed At Different Jurisdictions And In Same Incident Under Same Offence NOT allowed]

 

Maliciously Instituted/ Counterblast cases/ Delay Not explained Cases

  1. State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  2. Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007 [Time-barred u/s 468]
  3. Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008
  4. State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008
  5. MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  6. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  7. Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012 [Various liberal principles in condoning delays under Sec 5 of Limitation Act; Time limitation applies to Govt instrumentality-appellant]
  8. Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of UP & Anr on 31 March, 2017
  9. State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017
  10. Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018

 

Material evidence required that supports allegations

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865
  3. Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828
  4. CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005
  5. Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006 [there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials]
  6. Ran Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, Case no. appeal (Crl) 222 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3089 of 2006
  7. M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 3146
  8. Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763 [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  9. Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2314
  10. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 3050
  11. Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961] [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  12. Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Part-paid dowry is in Connection with Marriage]
  13. M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961]

 

Approaching Court with unclean hands

  1. All Perjury judgments can be gainfully utilized. They are here.

 

Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 227 CrPC can be found here.

 

Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 239 CrPC can be found here.

 

 

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Counterblast case CrPC 227 - Discharged CrPC 239 - Discharged CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed IPC 494 - Not Made Out Against Woman IPC 498a - Not Made Out Is Not Relative Of Husband Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass No Material To Sustain Charge No Territorial Jurisdiction Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce May 24, 2022
  • Ganesh Vs Sudhirkumar Shrivastava and Ors on 22 Apr 2019 May 24, 2022
  • Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021 May 24, 2022
  • MS Knit Pro International Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 20 May 2022 May 23, 2022
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 May 20, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Lifecycle Stages of a Maintenance Case under 125 CrPC (3,496 views)
  • Arunkumar N Chaturvedi Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 24 Dec 2013 (2,712 views)
  • Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021 (1,897 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,114 views)
  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (1,006 views)
  • Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022 (672 views)
  • NBW Judgments (624 views)
  • Life Cycles of Various case types (560 views)
  • Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021 (519 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (519 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (299)Reportable Judgement or Order (285)Landmark Case (282)Work-In-Progress Article (213)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (207)Catena of Landmark Judgments (184)1-Judge Bench Decision (100)Sandeep Pamarati (85)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (70)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (70)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (50)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (48)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Recommended Guidelines or Directions (33)Advocate Antics (33)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (32)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (589)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (292)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (151)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (103)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (55)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (47)LLB Study Material (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (38)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (34)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (32)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (14)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • May 2022 (13)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (36)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Workers Update Delays and Cloudflare Pages Deployment Delays May 24, 2022
    May 24, 14:47 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.May 24, 14:21 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.May 24, 13:48 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is experiencing delays in updating Workers on the edge and executing new Cloudflare Pages deployments. This does not impact existing Workers and Pages projects already […]
  • Cloudflare API service issues impacting API Shield - API Discovery May 24, 2022
    May 24, 14:12 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.May 24, 13:34 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.May 24, 10:32 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.May 24, 08:36 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is investigating issues with Cloudflare APIs related to API Shield's […]
  • Cloudflare Workers Analytics Issues May 23, 2022
    May 23, 23:54 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.May 23, 23:46 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.May 23, 21:51 UTCInvestigating - Some customers might experience errors accessing Cloudflare Workers Analytics data in the Cloudflare dashboard and APIs.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 122.14.136.251 | SD May 23, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 87,572 | First: 2022-03-03 | Last: 2022-05-23
  • 103.18.100.243 | SD May 23, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 7,283 | First: 2022-04-04 | Last: 2022-05-23
  • 103.18.100.238 | SD May 23, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 7,353 | First: 2018-07-17 | Last: 2022-05-23
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 697 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel