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: Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport

Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel further relied on the decision passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1954 of 2020, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 in the case of “Suresh Nanda V. CBI”, wherein the Apex Court observed that impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing. Accordingly, this court held that neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the court of law and only the Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.

3 Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Courts Can Not Impound Passport Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Return The Passport To Accused | Leave a comment

XXX Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020

Posted on November 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

From Para 18, (When Seizure turns into Impounding – 4 weeks from Seizure)

18. Having given due consideration to the submissions made as above and also taking note of the precedents on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is to be seen that retaining of passport by the police authorities after the same is seized beyond a period of four weeks would amount to impounding by the police authority, which power the said authority lacks, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda V. C.B.I. (2008) 3 SCC 674. Further, this court having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and the provisions of the Cr.P.C. including Section 457 Cr.P.C., has by its order in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in W.P. No.22956 of 2019 held that retaining the seized property by the police after being reported to the Magistrate, would have to be considered only as a custodian and such retaining cannot be considered as impounding by the police authorities and passport holder has to make an application to the concerned Court for release of the passport.

From Para 19,

However, even after commencement of functioning of Courts, if the respondent police authority has failed or fails to take steps in depositing the passport within a period of four weeks, the same would amount to impounding, which power the authorities are not conferred with.

From Para 20,

20. Further, even after the seized material is deposited into Court under seizure report, when it comes to passport seized and deposited into Court, the Court is not empowered to impound the passport under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. upon such deposit. The power to impound a validly issued passport is specifically conferred on the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, being a special enactment would prevail over Cr.P.C. a general enactment. Thus, even after deposit of seized property into the Court, the respondent authority would be required to take further steps by approaching the passport authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and seek for impounding of passport. The said situation can arise only if any one of the condition enumerated in clause (a) to (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 being attracted. At this stage, the judgement rendered by the Madras High Court in Jeyabalan case (supra) would be of aid to the case of the petitioner.

From Para 21 (Very Imp: Passport/Travel document can be cancelled by Passport Authority, even when the physical possession of passport is not there with them)

21. It is also to be seen that for impounding of passport by the passport authority on attracting any of the conditions specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, having of physical custody of passport is neither mandatory nor specified. It is only the satisfaction of the passport authority that any of the conditions stipulated in (a) to (h) of Section 10(3) is attracted, the authority can impound the same, irrespective of where the passport holder is residing at. However, before passing of impounding order, the authority is required to give opportunity of hearing to the concerned. Thus, the claim of the respondent authorities that, if passport is released to the petitioner, it will be difficult to apprehend him again, does not appeal to this Court for being accepted for the aforesaid reasons and also having regard to the wide amplitude of powers, the passport authority enjoys, unless the petitioner escapes to countries with whom India does not have Extradition Treaties or Arrangements or seeks asylum in a country so permitting. Even otherwise, the said apprehension also appears to be without any basis for the reason, the petitioner claims to be working onsite/onshore with an Indian IT company and would be on employment visa and all his details would be available with the employer as to the onsite location of working and client details and at a call of the employer, the employee can be withdrawn and deported from wherever he is.

XXX Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020

Note: Name of the Petitioner redacted upon his request email dt: 13 Jul 2023

Posted in High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Courts Can Deposit Passport Courts Can Not Impound Passport Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Police Confiscated Passport Return The Passport To Accused XXX Vs The State of Telangana | Leave a comment

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Posted on October 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows:

From Para 4,

4. The present case concerns an application made by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking release of his passport on the ground that the son of the petitioner studies in a school at Paris – Sports Etudes Concept and was attending classes virtually. Since classes have now started physically, the
petitioner wanted to accompany his son for getting him admitted in the school. This application is rejected by the trial Court. It is the rejection of the application that is called in question in the present proceedings. Therefore, these proceedings concern with the rejection of release of passport of the petitioner and not any other issue that is pending in plethora of cases between the parties.
6. Learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli would submit that several proceedings between the parties are pending consideration. The Apex Court has stayed all further proceedings in other cases. The case at hand is not an offshoot of those cases, but an independent case of an application, where the passport of the petitioner is seized, not impounded by the police and there is grave urgency for the petitioner to leave the country and get his son admitted to the school at France.

And then

17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings before the competent criminal Court and the Police after investigation have also filed charge sheet in the matter in which, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.10. Therefore, it is not a case where the passport of the petitioner cannot even be seized or impounded, but, by whom is the question.
18. The Passport Act is a special enactment and is trite that it being a special enactment would prevail over Section 102 or Section 104 of the Cr.P.C., which empower the Police to seize and the Court to impound any document. Impounding of any document produced before the Court cannot stretch to an extent that it can impound the passport. Therefore, the deposit of passport before the Court or passport being held before the Police, both will become without authority of law. The further observation of the Court that it would be in its custody till conclusion of trial is, clearly on the face of it, without authority of law, as it would amount to impounding the passport. This very issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of SURESH NANDA v. CBI

The Apex Court dealt with the very issue as to who would be the Authority to impound the passport. The Apex Court holds that neither the Police nor the Court invoking powers under Section 102 or Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. can seize or impound a passport. Impounding of a passport is by the Authority vested under the Act as depicted therein. It is not in dispute that the Authority under the Act is not even made aware of seizure or retention of the passport by the Police or before the Court.

From Para 24,

21. The power of impounding a document under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. is available to a Court. This cannot stretch to an extent of impounding the passport. The passport coming within the purview of the Act and it being a special law would prevail over the provisions of Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. The Court can impound any document, but not the passport as it is dealt with under a special enactment. The power of impounding is available only to the Competent Authority under the Act, in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Wherefore, the order rejecting the release of passport by the Court observing that it is held in safe custody till the conclusion of the trial is unsustainable. Therefore, the petitioner becomes entitled for release of passport in his favour, as right to hold a passport and travel is, without doubt, held to be a fundamental right in plethora of judgments.

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

 

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Courts Can Not Impound Passport Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Passports Act - Sec 10(3)(e) Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. | Leave a comment

D.Suryaprakash Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 06 Dec 2019

Posted on April 27, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows:

Time and again this Court is coming across many cases, wherein the deposit of passport is being ordered by the Courts at the time of granting bail etc. The Hon’ble SupremeCourt of India in Suresh Nanda’s case (1 supra) has very clearly laid down that impounding of passport is not power that is available to the police. The police have a right tomerely seize the passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C., but they do not have the power to retain the passport. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has already clearly held that the retention of a passport for a long time also amounts to impounding of the passport. This is very clearly laid down in the judgment of Suresh Nanda’s case (1 supra). Apart from that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also clearly held thatafter the passport is seized and if the State was of the opinion that the petitioner was likely to flee the country or that he is at a flight risk, the only option available to the State or theprosecution is to file an appropriate application before the Passport Authorities to impound the passport for the reasonsmentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. The Passport Authorities shall give a notice to the accused and after hearing the accused, they will have to pass an order. Sincethe cancellation of the passport is an order having severe civilconsequences, the accused also has a right of being heardbefore the passport is impounded. The Passport Act, being a special law will prevail over the general law.

Next Para,

In that view of the matter, irrespective of the fact that whether in the present case the issue relates to the voluntary deposit of the passport or deposit pursuant to an order of the Court, the fact remains that neither case is supported by the law. If the counsel made a wrong concession, the same cannot be enure to the benefit of the prosecution. A party should not suffer for any mistake committed by the counsel. If the same is a part and parcel of the lower Courts order, then it is clearly opposed by the law as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suresh Nanda’s case (1 supra). Therefore, for both these reasons, this Court holds that the condition about the deposit of the passport cannot be imposed by a Court while granting bail or for any other reason. The only option left in such cases, when the passport is seized is to take steps under the Act for cancellation/impounding. Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that the original passport is lost and the accused has applied for a duplicate passport and has flouted the Court
order. Basing on the written instructions received by him, he states that petitioner/A.1 is also liable for contempt of Court. This is also not correct and the order of the Court does not seem to suggest this. As mentioned earlier, neither the Court can impose such a condition nor can the counsel give a
concession and deposit the passport. Even if the passport is deposited pursuant to the concession made by a counsel, the same cannot be retained indefinitely by the Court or the Police till the trial is concluded.
In fact, in the decision of Suresh Nanda (1supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India noticed that under Section 10(a) of the Act, even the Central Government can only retain the passport for four weeks. Thereafter, a further order from Passport Authorities is necessary for retention of the passport.
After clarifying the law on the subject and holding that the impugned order passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is contrary to law, this Court leaves it open to the prosecution to take such steps as are warranted by law, if they are so advised to cancel the passport of the accused.

D.Suryaprakash Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 06 Dec 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130750295/

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Courts Can Not Impound Passport D.Suryaprakash Venkata Rao Vs State of AP Landmark Case Obligation To Record Reasons For Impounding Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Sandeep Pamarati Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. | Leave a comment

Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana on 09 October, 2018

Posted on October 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Now Hon’ble High of Punjab and Haryana also held that Courts/Police cannot impound anyone’s passport in India. Only Passport Authority can impound/revoke a passport in India.

Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana on 09 October, 2018

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana Courts Can Not Impound Passport Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Passports Act - Sec 10(3)(e) Return The Passport To Accused | Leave a comment

Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI on 12 May, 2017

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Madras in this straightforward judgment, set aside the condition to surrender the petitioner’s passport

From Para 3,

The petitioner is aggrieved against the condition made therein whereby he was directed to surrender his passport before the Court and was directed, not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

From Para 5,

The legal question as to whether the police are empowered to retain the passport of an accused under the provisions of Cr.P.C., has come time and again before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other Courts and it has been held that the Courts exercising its power under the Cr.P.C., cannot impound the passport under the guise of seizure.

From Para 8,

The objections raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases may not be of much relevance since what would be pertinent to decide in the present petition is the powers of police to retain the passport of the petitioner. The Passport Act which is a Special law will prevail over the provisions of the Cr.p.c., the General law.

From Para 9,

Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act specifically deals with impounding of passport whereas Section 104 Cr.P.C., allows the Court to impound the document to produce before the Court. The Passport Act overrides the provision of Cr.P.C., for the purpose of impounding passport. In the present case in hand, the order directing to surrender the passport indefinitely amounts to impounding of the passport itself.

Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI on 12 May, 2017
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Courts Can Not Impound Passport Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Return The Passport To Accused | Leave a comment

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs CBI on 4 June, 2018

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Basing squarely on Suresh Nanda Vs CBI judgment, High Court of Bombay, also ordered the CBI to return Jignesh’s passport within a period of three weeks from judgment date.

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs CBI on 4 June, 2018

A little intro to Mr.Jignesh Prakash Shah here and a new book.

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Courts Can Not Impound Passport Do Not Leave India Without Permission Of Court Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs CBI Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Police Confiscated Passport | Leave a comment

Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2016

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Even though, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court bench has dismissed this M.Cr.C, it categorically held that,

Another issue raised by the knife in this case is that,

the respondent No.2 preferred the revision without impleading the applicant as party, therefore, the applicant could not get opportunity of hearing. Hence, the order passed behind the back of the applicant is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that presence of respondent No.2 is required during trial and in the event of end of trial into conviction it would be difficult to bring the respondent No.2 back to India from USA for serving out the sentence. In such circumstances, the order of granting permission to go to USA is not justified and, therefore, it be set aside.

And here is the slipper slap given by court to knife:

It was not required for the respondent No.2 to make the applicant as party to the revision, therefore, the objection of the applicant that opportunity of hearing was not given to her before the revisional Court has no merit.

Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2016
Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Courts Can Not Impound Passport Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh No Need To Implead Complainant In Revision Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport | Leave a comment

Indian Passport released or returned to Accused Judgments

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

List of judgments that can be used in your applications to request for release/return of your passport from Indian Courts.

Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court

  1. Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi on 10 April, 1967
  2. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
  3. Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. on 24 January, 2008 (Only passport authority can impound a passport, but no one else like police or courts)
  4. Sanjay Awasthi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 14 Jul 2015
  5. Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 27 Sep 2021 (Passport can be renewed without Court permission or when a criminal appeal is pending)
  6. Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: Principles of Natural Justice violated since the act of impounding the appellant’s passport under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967, was carried out without granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard]

 

Judgments of Hon’ble High Courts in India

  1. Nandini Bhatnagar Vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi on 14 December, 2012
  2. Anand Tewari Vs Union Of India & Ors, on 18 September, 2013 (Passport impounded?)
  3. Shreyas Sharma Vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2014 (Anticipatory Bail granted without surrendering passport condition)
  4. Sumit Kumar Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016 (Anticipatory Bail granted without surrendering passport condition)
  5. Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2016
  6. Mohd. Farid Vs Union Of India And Another on 20 December, 2016 (Passport impounded?)
  7. N.Chandrababu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 21 April, 2017 (Passport impounded?)
  8. Krishna Munivenkatappa Vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2017 (Passport impounded?)
  9. Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI on 12 May, 2017
  10. Suresh Rajan Vs The Passport Officer on 30 October, 2017 (Passport impounded?)
  11. Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs CBI on 4 June, 2018
  12. D.Suryaprakash Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 06 Dec 2019
  13. Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020 (APHC)
  14. Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020 (APHC)
  15. Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020 (TelHC:)
  16. Akshay Vinod Kulkarni Vs Chief Passport Officer and Anr on 03 May 2021
  17. Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022 (KarHC)
  18. Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022 (APHC)
  19. Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Aug 2022 (Police Clearance Certificate)
  20. Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (No Court permission required for Passport Renewal)

 


Index page here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Courts Can Not Impound Passport Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport | Leave a comment

Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. on 24 January, 2008

Posted on July 22, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, no one, except Passport Authority, can impound a passport; nor police nor Courts. Period.

The Apex Court held that

there is a difference between seizing a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, the seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document, said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts impounding of property/or document.

And also

Maintaining that, the Passport Act, 1967 is a special act and thereby prevails over the Cr.P.C. which is a general law, vide G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). This principle is expressed in the maxim \023Generalia specialibus non derogant\024. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing.

This judgment has lead to lot of other judgments wherein the various High Courts in India had ordered lower courts to return back the passports of accused, that were either confiscated by the police as part of their search operations or crime investigation or had been surrendered to Courts, as a condition to obtaining Anticipatory Bail. They are listed here.

Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I on 24 January, 2008

Citations : [2008 AIR SC 1414], [2008 AIR SC 0 898], [2008 SCC 3 674], [2008 LW CRL 1 503], [2008 SCALE 2 46], [2008 JT 2 174], [2008 ALL MR CRI 1189], [2008 ALT CRI 2 344], [2008 DLT 147 397], [2008 CCR 1 318], [2008 SLT 2 245], [2008 AIOL 107], [2008 BOMCR CRI SC 2 514], [2008 SCC CRI 2 121], [2008 AIR SCW 898], [2008 CRLJ SC 1599], [2008 MLJ CRL 1 1195]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/572504/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae74e4b0149711413efc

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Courts Can Not Impound Passport Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Reportable Judgement or Order Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I. | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
vigilnthindutva Hindutva Vigilant @vigilnthindutva ·
20 Jun

POV: You Visit London In 2050

Reply on Twitter 1935943435028254867 Retweet on Twitter 1935943435028254867 439 Like on Twitter 1935943435028254867 2048 X 1935943435028254867
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ncbn N Chandrababu Naidu @ncbn ·
21 Jun

#InternationalYogaDay2025
#APBreaksWorldRecord

Today, Visakhapatnam saw two mighty oceans, with Bay of Bengal on one side, and a boundless sea of yoga practitioners on the other.

I joined Hon’ble Prime Minister @NarendraModi Ji and lakhs of citizens to celebrate International…

Reply on Twitter 1936303432308302258 Retweet on Twitter 1936303432308302258 966 Like on Twitter 1936303432308302258 7663 X 1936303432308302258
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
frustindian The Frustrated Indian @frustindian ·
21 Jun

🚨 : DRDO Proposes an Airship for the IAF !!!

It will be Solar Powered and Can stay up in the Air for weeks and months at a strech...

Reply on Twitter 1936337158438015112 Retweet on Twitter 1936337158438015112 1338 Like on Twitter 1936337158438015112 10320 X 1936337158438015112
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
idf Israel Defense Forces @idf ·
20 Jun

These are 4 reasons why Iran’s arsenal couldn’t be ignored:

Reply on Twitter 1936176484898546043 Retweet on Twitter 1936176484898546043 1695 Like on Twitter 1936176484898546043 7272 X 1936176484898546043
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 June 17, 2025
  • V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025 June 16, 2025
  • Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014 June 8, 2025
  • Bilal Ahmad Ganaie Vs Sweety Rashid and Ors on 11 May 2023 June 8, 2025
  • Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs Anuradha Kovi (Nullity petition) June 7, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,641 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,189 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (1,925 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,563 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,381 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,149 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,008 views)
  • State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024 (853 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (754 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (742 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (402)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (372)Landmark Case (368)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (292)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (273)Work-In-Progress Article (217)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (59)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)Legal Terrorism (38)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (716)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (318)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (179)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (106)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (35)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

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

Archives of SoK

  • June 2025 (9)
  • 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

  • BGW (Baghdad) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BGW (Baghdad) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • BSR (Basra) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BSR (Basra) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • NJF (Najaf) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in NJF (Najaf) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 3884 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel