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: Work-In-Progress Article

Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs UOI and Ors on 19 May 2020

Posted on May 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, gave this Judgment.

From Para 26,

26. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the attention of Mr Kapil Sibal and Dr Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel was specifically drawn to the fact that the FIRs which were filed in various states by persons professing allegiance to the INC appear, prima facie, to be reproductions of the same language and content. Responding to this, Mr Sibal fairly stated that in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court may well quash all the other FIRs and allow the investigation into the FIR which has been transferred to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai to proceed in accordance with law. Mr Sibal has also urged that there cannot be any dispute in regard to the legal position that a complaint in regard to the offence of defamation can only be at the behest of the person who is aggrieved. Consequently, the FIR which has been presently under investigation at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai would not cover any offence under Section 499 of the IPC.

 

Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs UOI and Ors on 19 May 2020

 


Citations: [

Other Source links:

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs UOI and Ors Article 32 - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part Avoid Multiplicity Of Litigation Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to IPC 499 - Defamation Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court In this case, upheld the view taken by the Delhi High Court that the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the Domestic Violence Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. Even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the Act.

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012

Two more Orders after the above one were passed.

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 04 April 2012

Order u/s 19

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2013

Citations: []

Other Source links:


The index page is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Landmark Case PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Rent) Granted Reportable Judgement or Order V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that Women can also be made respondents in a DV case.

From Paras 12, 13 and 14,

12. From the above definition it would be apparent that although Section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage.
13. It is true that the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to
exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of
it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression “relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only.
14. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011

Citations: []

Other Source links:


After more than 5 long years, Supreme Court has struck down two words “Adult male” from Sec 2(q) of PWDV Act 2005 here.


The index page is 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 Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 2(q) – Women Can Be Respondents In PWDV Case Reportable Judgement or Order Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Katju held as follows:

33. In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not
being formally married :-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties
must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’.

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Citations: []

Other Source links:

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal In the Nature of Marriage Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 2(f) - Domestic Relationship Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod Vs Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav BM Chudasama and others on 12 May 2020

Posted on May 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Gujarat has quashed the December 2017 election of Gujarat’s Law Minister, Bhupendrasinh Manubha Chudasama to the State’s Legislative Assembly as violative of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951

Latest: The LawMin appealed against High Court judgment at Supreme Court.

Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod Vs Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav BM Chudasama and others on 12 May 2020

Citations: []

Other Source links: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/such-an-election-should-not-be-permitted-to-hold-the-field-gujarat-hc-quashes-state-law-minister-bm-chudasamas-2017-election

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod Vs Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav BM Chudasama and others Election Matter Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March 2020

Posted on May 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Vineet Saran sitting in a 5-Judge bench delivered this reference judgment on the following two questions of law.

Question-1

Whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as envisaged under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act?

Answered as follows:

To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the  response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer  Protection Act

Question-2

What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

Answered as follows:

the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.

New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March 2020

Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 1267], [2020 SCC OnLine SC 287]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96395504/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e69d2383321bc624fea2d34

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 5-Judge Constitutional Bench Decision CP Act 13(2) - Commencement of the Period of Limitation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Mandatory or Directory New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Satyanarayana Bolisetty Vs Union of India

Posted on May 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

On 23-04-2020,

Since the AP High Court had already taken cognizance of this issue, NGT made following Order.

In Para 8,

8. So under these circumstances, we feel it appropriate to adjourn the matter to Monday 27th April, 2020 at the same time. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant wanted the learned counsel appearing for the Government of Andhra Pradesh to mention about the pendency of this matter before the Honb’le High Court of Andhra Pradesh as well so that the Hon’’ble High Court may be knowing about the pendency of similar matter before this Tribunal. Further, learned counsel appearing for Government of Andhra Pradesh wanted the counsel for the applicant to furnish the details of Survey Numbers of the properties from where the alleged violations are said to be committed by the Government as well and these particulars are lacking in this application. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant is directed to ascertain those particulars and submit the same before this Tribunal before the next hearing date with copy to counsel for respondents 2 to 6 in advance so that she can get further report regarding the same and send the same to this Tribunal before the next hearing date.

Satyanarayana Bolisetty Vs Union of India on 23 April 2020

On 01-05-2020,

NGT was prima facie, satisfied that there is arguable case here.

12. We are satisfied that there arises substantial question of environment for consideration. Admit. Issue notice to respondents. Since respondents 1 to 6 entered appearance through counsel, direct notice to respondents is dispensed with. The counsel for applicant is directed to serve copy of the original application and also the amended application to the counsel appearing for respondents. The respondents are directed to file their detailed response to the application before the next hearing date.

Then,

11. So in order to ascertain these facts, we feel it appropriate to appoint a joint committee comprising of (1) Senior Officer from the Regional Office of MoEF & CC, Chennai (2) Senior Officer from Andhra Pradesh Coastal Zone Management Authority (3) Senior Officer nominated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Forces/Chief Wildlife Warden (4) District Collector, *East Godavari District and (5) District Forest Officer, *East Godavari District, Kakinada to go into the question as to whether the area in question was a mangrove forest subject to the provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications 2011 and 2019 requiring any clearance for any project, whether any clearance from MoEF & CC or Forest Department is required under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and whether permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden is required for commissioning the project as according to the applicant it is adjacent to Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary. In order to ascertain the anterior position of the area in question, the committee is directed to verify the forest cover map maintained by the Forest Survey of India prepared through satellite images for a period of six months prior to the filing of the application and if any violation is found they are directed to mention the nature of violation and also the nature of damage caused to environment and assess the environmental compensation required for restoration of damage caused to environment, including restoration of mangroves in that area. The committee shall verify the satellite image of forest cover prepared by the Forest Survey of India for a period of six months prior to the filing of the application and compare the same with the present condition in order to ascertain the extent of damage, if any caused either to forest cover or mangroves and assess environmental compensation. Regional Office of MoEF & CC, Chennai will be the nodal agency for coordination and for providing necessary logistic for this purpose. Three months time is granted to the committee to inspect and submit the report to this Tribunal through e-mail at [email protected] with advance copy to the counsel appearing for the parties. Construction if any done will be subject to the result of this application . If ultimately it is found by the committee that there is any violation of any of the environmental laws by the State Government and the officers concerned who were responsible for the destruction then they are liable for the consequences, including demolition of the building and payment of environmental compensation apart from restoration of damage caused to the mangroves. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the above officers immediately by e-mail in order to enable them to comply with the direction of this Tribunal.

Satyanarayana Bolisetty Vs Union of India on 01 May 2020

 

Posted in National Green Tribunal | Tagged Satyanarayana Bolisetty Vs Union of India Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

In re Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant, RR Venkatapuram Village Visakhapatnam

Posted on May 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

NGT has ordered the LG Polymers as follows on 08-05-2020

In Para 6,

6. Having regard to the prima facie material regarding the extent of damage to life, public health and environment, we direct LG Polymers India Pvt., Limited to forthwith deposit an initial amount of Rs. 50 Crore, with the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam, which will abide by further orders of this Tribunal. The amount is being fixed having regard to the financial worth of the company and the extent of the damage caused.

In re Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant RR Venkatapuram Village Visakhapatnam

Then on 01-06-2020, the following directions were passed.

40. In view of above, we issue following directions in the matter:
i. The amount of Rs. 50 crores deposited by the Company with the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam will stand appropriated towards part liability and interim compensation to be spent for restoration of the environment and compensation for victims in accordance with the restoration plan to be prepared.
ii. Restoration plan may be prepared by a Committee comprising two representatives each of MoEF & CC, CPCB and three representatives of State Government to be named by the Chief Secretary, including the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam and such other concerned Departments within two months from today. MoEF&CC will be the nodal agency for the purpose.
iii. Final quantification of compensation may be assessed by a Committee comprising representatives of MoEF & CC, CPCB and NEERI. The said Committee will be at liberty to associate/co-opt any other expert institution or individual. The Secretary, MoEF & CC may ensure constitution of such
Committee within two weeks from today. The Committee may give its report within two months thereafter. MoEF & CC will be the nodal agency for the purpose.
iv. The Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh may identify and take appropriate action against persons responsible for failure of law in permitting the Company to operate without statutory clearances within two months and give a report to this Tribunal
v. In view of the stand of the State PCB and the Company that it will not recommence its operation without requisite statutory clearances, we direct that if any such statutory clearances are granted and the Company proposes to recommence, this aspect must be brought to the notice of this Tribunal so that compliance of law is ensured.
vi. The MoEF & CC may also constitute an Expert Committee to suggest ways and means to revamp monitoring mechanism to check and prevent violation of environmental norms and preventing any such recurrence in future in any of the establishments dealing with hazardous chemicals. A special drive may be initiated in this regard. An action taken report may be furnished within three months from today.
vii. This order will not prejudice any criminal or other statutory proceedings in accordance with law.

2020-06-01 In re Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant

Next hearing is on 03-11-2020.


A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.

Posted in National Green Tribunal | Tagged In Re Poisonous gas leakage in Visakhapatnam Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Kishore Para Vs State of AP

Posted on May 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

PIL sought to hold the rallies conducted by the party functionaries during the Lockdown Norms. The news snippets are here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Kishore Para Vs State of AP Violation of Lockdown Norms Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Vs State of Maharashtra on 27 April 2020

Posted on April 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Interesting case… A muslim man alleges indecent behavior by members of Tablighi Jamaat and as a consequence, he himself got booked by Police. In the following Order, he got Anticipatory bail from Bombay High Court.

Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Vs State of Maharashtra on 27 April 2020

Citations:

Other Source links:

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Vs State of Maharashtra CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Granted Sensational Or Peculiar Cases Work-In-Progress Article | 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
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.Take legal action on the mischief mongers? @NCBNOffice @ncbn @OfficeofNL @PawanKalyan @JanaSenaParty @apcpim @CpiAp @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @apngo_official @AshokParchuri @utfchittoor @Anitha_TDP @Ravinaidu1111 @RamuduM_RCT @IRayachoti @Telugodu1982 @DSGRAJU1 @SVSN_Varma

Reply on Twitter 2060946323273404827 Retweet on Twitter 2060946323273404827 3 Like on Twitter 2060946323273404827 2 X 2060946323273404827
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.1.Please provide online facility for RTI Applications in the state.2. Start two regional offices at Vijayawada and Vizag for Lokayukta and APHRC? @NCBNOffice @cbn_updates1 @OfficeofNL @tv5newsnow @RamMNK @ravivallabha @abvrao @nalamotu @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @gvreddy0406

Reply on Twitter 2060967039142068602 Retweet on Twitter 2060967039142068602 2 Like on Twitter 2060967039142068602 2 X 2060967039142068602
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.@SajjanarVC_IPS @SajjanarOffice @CVAnandIPS @bandisanjay_bjp @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @GvNarasaiah @lawyersrinu @apcpim @CpiAp @BjpVarma @BJP4Andhra @IYRKRao @iTDPVinukonda @SriKrishnaLavu @Collector_Plnd @Palnadu_Police @tv5newsnow @MP_Araku @VasBytes @ravivallabha @ANI

Reply on Twitter 2060993042606428296 Retweet on Twitter 2060993042606428296 2 Like on Twitter 2060993042606428296 2 X 2060993042606428296
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.@AdvocateAsr @BhimavaramJSP @bjp4elurujilla @OfficeofNL @JP_LOKSATTA @Anitha_TDP @JSPWestGodavari @KRaghuRaju @BjpVarma @RamanaiduTDP @PawanKalyan @JanaSenaParty @JanasenaBadvel @NagababuPasam @CityJsp @HariramaJogayya @palakollu_NFans @Police_WG @NCBNOffice @VasBytes @DSGRAJU1

Reply on Twitter 2061065013641843078 Retweet on Twitter 2061065013641843078 2 Like on Twitter 2061065013641843078 1 X 2061065013641843078
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Are Offices of Dowry Prohibition Officers in AP designated as Police Stations? June 3, 2026
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 June 2, 2026
  • Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018 May 28, 2026
  • Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022 May 27, 2026
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 May 26, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,823 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,347 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,179 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,403 views)
  • Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025 (2,122 views)
  • Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 (2,080 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (1,977 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,871 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,774 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,552 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 (361)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 (327)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 (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (58)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 Telangana 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 (2)
  • 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

  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 15, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 28, 22:16 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, but customers will be unable to create/delete/modify tunnels, routes, hostname routes, virtual networks, devices and tunnel configurations via the Dashboard or the public […]
  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 4, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 21, 00:41 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, customers will be unable to modify configurations via the Dashboard or the public API for a period of up to 3 minutes. This […]
  • Audit Log Delays June 3, 2026
    Jun 3, 19:59 UTC Update - We are continuing to investigate this issue. Jun 3, 19:58 UTC Investigating - We are investigating an issue where Cloudflare Audit Log processing is running behind, causing a delay in timely delivery of audit data. These delays do not impact analytics for DNS or Rate Limiting.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 193.193.237.158 | SD June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,352 | First: 2025-11-25 | Last: 2026-06-03
  • 158.94.211.154 | S June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 987 | First: 2026-01-28 | Last: 2026-06-03
  • 45.164.196.232 | S June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 5 | First: 2026-06-03 | Last: 2026-06-03
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 600 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel