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: Referred to Large Bench

Vysakh K.G. Vs Union of India and Anr on 22 Dec 2022

Posted on January 6 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Kerala High Court held that, if parties to certain cases insist that their personal details be erased from the Court systems, the Registry will oblige and not publish the same on it’s website.

From Para 64,

64. In summation, we hold as follows:
i. We declare that a claim for the protection of personal information based on the right to privacy cannot co-exist in an Open Court justice system.
ii. We hold that right to be forgotten cannot be claimed in current proceedings or in a proceedings of recent origin. It is for the Legislature to fix grounds for the invocation of such a right. However, the Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and duration involved related to a crime or any other litigation, may permit a party to invoke the above rights to de-index and to remove the personal information of the party from search engines. The Court, in appropriate cases, is also entitled to invoke principles related to the right to erasure to allow a party to erase and delete personal data that is available online.
iii. We declare and hold that in family and matrimonial cases, arising from the Family Court jurisdiction or otherwise and also in other cases where the law does not recognise the Open Court system, the Registry of the Court shall not publish personal information of the parties or shall not allow any form of publication containing the identity of the parties on the website or on any other information system maintained by the Court if the parties to such litigation so insist.
iv. We hold that the Registry of the High Court is bound to publish privacy notices on its website in both English and Vernacular languages.

Vysakh K.G. Vs Union of India and Anr on 22 Dec 2022
Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Referred to Large Bench Reportable Judgement or Order Right to be Forgotten Right to Privacy Vysakh K.G. Vs Union of India and Anr | Leave a comment

Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021

Posted on May 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court held as follows:

On an examination of the controversy involved in the present case in the background of the law laid down in Rakesh Malhotra (supra) once it comes to the knowledge of the learned Magistrate that the marriage between the parties have been dissolved by a decree of divorce under the relevant provisions of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is found that the wife has received a lump-sum amount as onetime payment towards maintenance, what would be the procedure adopted in the following circumstances:
(a) A fresh case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed.
(b) The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending and the Civil Court has dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce and there was no information before the Civil Court regarding the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(c) Procedure/steps to be adopted by the learned Magistrate if the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (which has already been decided) are in different sub-divisions or different districts or different States.
As the aforesaid questions involve serious ramification so far as the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are concerned, I am of the view that the same is to be referred and settled by a Larger Bench (as there are conflicting judgments of this Court on the point).
Accordingly, the record of the case be placed before The Hon’ble The Chief Justice (Acting), High Court at Calcutta.

Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021

The case was ordered to be listed but it’s been over 8 months, the Judges did not find time to look in it…

Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 10 Sep 2021 (List Matter)
Posted in High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Adjustment is Permissible in Multiple Maintenances Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce Multiple Maintenances Orders Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors Question of Law Involved Rajnesh Vs Neha and Anr Referred to Large Bench | Leave a comment

Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 06 May 2015

Posted on September 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 06 May 2015

Citations : [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 1073], [2016 SCC 16 352], [2017 SCC CIV 5 817]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581180ed2713e179479dfa29

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged HM Act Sec 13B - Divorce by Mutual Consent Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Mutual Consent Divorce Referred to Large Bench Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

Posted on October 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Since there was 1 judgment from a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court which said Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory u/s 340 CrPC, the 2-judge bench in this case, referred this point to a Larger bench.

From Para 14,

14. In any event, given that the decision of the three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra) did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate Bench in Pritish (supra) regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it necessary that the present matter be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration, particularly to answer the following questions:
(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court?
(ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?
15. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

This was answered by a three-judge bench as follows:

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 15 Sep 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

 


Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Perjury - Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Perjury Under 340 CrPC Referred to Large Bench State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh | Leave a comment

Manish Kumar Mishra Vs. Union Of India and 4 Ors on 01 May 2020

Posted on May 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The 3-judge bench of Allahabad High Court held right the decision made in Nawal Kishore Sharma here.

Manish Kumar Mishra Vs. Union Of India And 4 Ors on 01 May 2020

Citations: [2]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172265121/

Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Manish Kumar Mishra Vs. Union Of India and 4 Ors Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors Referred to Large Bench Reportable Judgement or Order Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts | Leave a comment

Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

Posted on April 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court was constrained to take a view different from the one taken by it in Bharatha Matha on Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

From Para 41,

41. In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents, whether self acquired or ancestral.

But thankfully, referred the matter to a larger bench in March 2011.

43. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench and for that purpose the records of the case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.

Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

Citations: [2011 SCJ 4 4], [2011 AIOL 244], [2011 CTC 2 810], [2013 ILR 4291], [2011 SCC 11 1], [2011 MWN CIVIL 3 528], [2011 MLJ 5 392], [2011 GLH 1 757], [2011 JCR SC 2 259], [2011 CLT SC 112 469], [2011 LW 3 255], [2011 SCALE 4 189], [2011 SCR 4 675], [2011 AIC 101 73], [2011 SCSUPPL CHN 4 50], [2011 AIR SC 2447], [2011 CALLT 3 58], [2011 KCCR 2 1531], [2011 AIR SC SUPP 155], [2011 JT SC 4 90], [2011 AWC SC 3 3126], [2011 UJ 2 1342], [2011 SCC CIV 3 581], [2011 KERLT 2 176], [2011 CGLRW 2 13], [2011 CUTLT 112 469], [2011 GUJ LH 1 757], [2011 ALR 86 450], [2011 RLW SC 3 2547], [2012 CCC SC 4 279]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138849/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aef4e4b014971141545b


The current status of this case is as follows:

12574_2003_8_5_21000_Order_24-Feb-2020

The earlier Judgment contradicted by this one is Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act Sec 16 - Legitimacy of Children of Void and Voidable Marriages Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Obiter Dicta Referred to Large Bench Reportable Judgement or Order Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors | Leave a comment

Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Posted on April 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that, without eligibility for the post of District Judge, petitioners (who are subordinate judiciary) cannot claim stake for the post/continue in the post reserved for Advocates (25%) and hence they have to be reverted to their earlier posts.

From Para 48,

48. In the case of Dheeraj Mor and others cases, time to time interim orders have been passed by this Court, and incumbents in judicial service were permitted to appear in the examination. Though later on, this Court vacated the said interim orders, by that time certain appointments had been  made in some of the States and in some of the States results have been withheld by the High Court owing to complication which has arisen due to participation of the ineligible in-service candidates as against the post reserved for the practising advocates. In the cases where such in-service incumbents have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from bar as we find no merit in the petitions and due to dismissal of the writ petitions  filed by the judicial officers, as sequel no fruits can be ripened on the basis of selection without eligibility, they cannot continue as District Judges. They have to be reverted to their original post. In case their right in channel for promotion had already been ripened, and their juniors have been  promoted, the High Court has to consider their promotion in accordance with prevailing rules. However, they cannot claim any right on the basis of such an appointment obtained under interim order, which was subject to the outcome of the writ petition and they have to be reverted.

Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 213]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10432983/ or
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e52c0a93321bc1e173f86fc or
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/dheeraj-mor-versus-hon%E2%80%99ble-high-court-of-delhi or
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/practising-advocates-experience-gained-at-bar-injects-judicial-branch-with-fresh-perspectives-sc-152952 or
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/02/19/members-of-subordinate-judiciary-cant-claim-direct-recruitment-to-the-district-judge-post-under-quota-meant-for-practicing-advocates/ or
https://www.barandbench.com/news/breaking-judicial-officers-cant-be-considered-for-direct-recruitment-as-district-judges-under-quota-for-bar-sc

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Article 233 - Appointment of district judges Article 234 - Recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service Article 309 - Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi Judiciary Antics Landmark Case Referred to Large Bench Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

Posted on August 23, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the order which cited Shafhi judgment here, to larger bench for reconsideration, since there was a conflicting precedent, in Anvar P,V.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 26 July, 2019

Here is the last Order, wherein Arguments have concluded and the Judgment was reserved.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 03 March 2020

Here is the final Judgment authored by Justice R.F.Nariman.

Relevant portions:

From Para 52: Accused must be given copy of all documents that prosecution relies upon.

52. It is pertinent to recollect that the stage of admitting documentary evidence in a criminal trial is the filing of the charge-sheet. When a criminal court summons the accused to stand trial, copies of all documents which are entered in the charge-sheet/final report have to be given to the accused. Section 207 of the CrPC, which reads as follows, is mandatory. Therefore, the electronic evidence, i.e. the computer output, has to be furnished at the latest before the trial begins. The reason is not far to seek; this gives the accused a fair chance to prepare and defend the charges levelled against him during the trial. The general principle in criminal proceedings therefore, is to supply to the accused all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before the commencement of the trial. The requirement of such full disclosure is an extremely valuable right and an essential feature of the right to a fair trial as it enables the accused to prepare for the trial before its commencement.

54. Therefore, in terms of general procedure, the prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which reliance may be placed to an accused before commencement of the trial. Thus, the exercise of power by the courts in criminal trials in permitting evidence to be filed at a later stage should not result in serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused. A balancing exercise in respect of the rights of parties has to be carried out by the court, in examining any application by the prosecution under Sections 91 or 311 of the CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act.

Depending on the facts of each case, and the Court exercising discretion after seeing that the accused is not prejudiced by want of a fair trial, the Court may in appropriate cases allow the prosecution to produce such certificate at a later point in time. If it is the accused who desires to produce the requisite certificate as part of his defence, this again will depend upon the justice of the case – discretion to be exercised by the Court in accordance with law.

From Para 59,

59. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14 July 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links:

 


The Bombay High Court judgment which was challenged at Supreme Court is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal Evidence Act 65B - Admissibility of electronic records Referred to Large Bench Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh Work-In-Progress Article

Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh

Posted on August 23, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment regarding Sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act and it’s procedure and usage.

Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 30 January, 2018 6212_2017

A follow up hearing…

Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 03 April, 2018 6212_2017

This judgment is referred to a larger bench and was overruled here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Overruled Judgment Referred to Large Bench Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark ruling from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that

“We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

But in a para prior to this para, this case was referred to a larger bench (this was a 3-judge bench). But this case was but after two years dismissed as the advocate for appellant dies and the appellant did not pursue the case. Here is the Dismissal Order:

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr on 5 September 2014

Here is the Para 45,

45.We, therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer the following, amongst other, questions to be decided by a larger Bench. According to us, the questions are:

1. Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?

2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

3. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

So, this judgment is NOT a landmark judgment as the question of law was NOT decided either by this Court nor by a larger bench of this Court.


Citation: [2011 ANJ SC 1 26], [2010 AIOL 681], [2011 SCC 1 141], [2011 ALLMR CRI SC 346], [2010 SCALE 10 602], [2011 BOMCR SC 2 787], [2011 SCC CRI 2 666], [2011 CRLJ SC 96], [2010 RCR CIVIL SC 4 801], [2010 JT 11 132], [2010 AIR SC 6497], [2011 SCC CIV 1 53]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949767/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aedbe4b0149711414ea0


But this judgment declared it so 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 Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr CrPC 125 - Maintenance Granted CrPC 125 - No Strict Proof of Marriage Required CrPC 125 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Question of Law Involved Referred to Large Bench Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Judgments on Transfer Petitions September 23, 2023
  • Implementation of A4 paper usage in District Courts in Andhra Pradesh September 22, 2023
  • Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 September 18, 2023
  • Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 September 15, 2023
  • Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 September 14, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Guidelines Issued) on 31 Jan 2023 (2,984 views)
  • Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors on 08 Aug 2023 (2,032 views)
  • Rakesh Raman Vs Kavita on 26 Apr 2023 (1,601 views)
  • Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 (1,577 views)
  • Sana Nitish Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana on 26 April 2023 (1,444 views)
  • Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Ors on 18 May 2023 (1,264 views)
  • Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 (1,129 views)
  • Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023 (1,124 views)
  • Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023 (1,046 views)
  • Pravasi Legal Cell Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Mar 2023 (991 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (352)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (344)Landmark Case (330)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (284)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (228)Work-In-Progress Article (217)1-Judge Bench Decision (187)Sandeep Pamarati (91)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (86)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (75)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (56)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (52)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (44)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (38)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Advocate Antics (35)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (33)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (656)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (300)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (161)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (94)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (58)General Study Material (55)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)Prakasam DV Cases (46)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (43)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (42)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (31)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (20)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • Anuj Rathi on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • ShadesOfKnife on Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022
  • HARPREET KAUR on Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022
  • ShadesOfKnife on All Reliefs from Judiciary

Archives of SoK

  • September 2023 (11)
  • 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 (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 (100)
  • 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

  • MIA (Miami) on 2023-10-10 October 10, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Oct 10, 03:30 - 10:00 UTCSep 12, 05:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MIA (Miami) datacenter on 2023-10-10 between 03:30 and 10:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • EZE (Buenos Aires) on 2023-10-03 October 3, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Oct 3, 08:00 - 10:00 UTCSep 22, 12:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EZE (Buenos Aires) datacenter on 2023-10-03 between 08:00 and 10:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • IAD (Ashburn) on 2023-10-02 October 2, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Oct 2, 08:00 - 13:00 UTCSep 21, 16:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in IAD (Ashburn) datacenter on 2023-10-02 between 08:00 and 13:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 185.106.94.247 | S September 22, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 19 | First: 2023-09-17 | Last: 2023-09-22
  • 103.43.141.56 | SD September 22, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 3,294 | First: 2015-02-18 | Last: 2023-09-22
  • 191.252.2.46 | SD September 22, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 88 | First: 2015-06-11 | Last: 2023-09-22
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1429 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel