Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025 SCC Online SC 2069) - The Supreme Court clarified procedures related to offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing that notices to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage are not necessary, and that offences can be compounded based on recent guidelines. The Court also set directions for courts to decide on compounding applications in light of these guidelines ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54744"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10662"], ["INDRI00000043891"], ["INDRJ00000043890"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 3644"], ["INDPH00000055334"].
Recent Circulars and Court Proceedings (2025-2026) - Multiple cases reference the application of the Sanjabij Tari judgment, leading to adjournments and directions for disposal or hearing dates (e.g., cases adjourned to 18.12.2025, 20.02.2026, 27.02.2026). Courts have followed the Supreme Court’s guidelines to allow for the disposal of cases involving offences under Section 138 NI Act through settlement or compounding, often imposing costs (e.g., 7.5% of the cheque amount) if disputes are settled post-rejection of appeals ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54744"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10662"], ["INDRI00000043891"], ["INDRJ00000043890"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 3644"], ["INDPH00000055334"].
Impact on Case Management and Proceedings - The judgments have led to procedural changes, including allowing cases to be disposed of or settled without issuing notices at pre-cognizance stages, and emphasizing the importance of settlement and compounding in offences under Section 138 NI Act. Courts are directed to decide on compounding applications based on the Supreme Court’s recent directions, streamlining dispute resolution ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54744"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10662"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The recent judicial developments, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025), have significantly influenced criminal procedures involving cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act. Courts are now guided to favor settlement and compounding, reducing procedural delays, and emphasizing the importance of amicable resolutions. This jurisprudence is consistently cited in subsequent circulars and case proceedings from 2025 to 2026, reflecting a shift towards more streamlined, settlement-oriented case management in financial offences all references.
Cheque bounce cases under (NI Act), continue to flood Indian courts, often resolving through compromises. But what happens when parties settle after an appeal is rejected? The 's decision in Sanjabij Tari v Kishore S Borcar & Anr. (2025 INSC 1158), cited in recent circulars including matters for , provides crucial guidance. This ruling clarifies procedures, imposes structured costs, and addresses enforceability amid violations. 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6533
If you're dealing with a dispute, understanding this precedent—frequently referenced in high court orders—can shape your strategy. Let's dive into the case often queried as Sanjabij Turi V Kishore s Barkar Cited in Recent Circulars E G Uttarakhand Hc 2025 2026, correcting the nomenclature to its accurate form: Sanjabij Tari v Kishore S Borcar.
The primary question revolves around permitting of Section 138 offences after the rejection of an appeal, alongside imposing costs. In the apex court's view, such compromises are allowable but not without accountability. Learned counsel in subsequent cases have argued: the petitioner may be permitted to get the offence compounded or the case disposed off in view of the recent directions issued by Hon’ble in 2025 INSC 1158 – Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S... 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6533
Key holdings include:- Structured Costs for Delayed Compromises: Where compromise arrives post-appeal rejection, courts must impose costs of 7.5% of the cheque amount. This was echoed in a order: a cost of 7.5% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari (supra). 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13234 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13235- Contemporary Relevance: Cited in Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand High Courts, underscoring its role in circulars. For instance, a Himachal Pradesh revision petition directed the petitioner to deposit 7.5% per the judgment. 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8351
This precedent emphasizes procedural fairness, ensuring settlements deter frivolous delays.
The ruled that sentences in Section 138 convictions can be set aside upon post-appeal compromise, subject to costs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (2025 INSC 1158), the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13234
Courts applying this have consistently imposed the 7.5% penalty to balance equity, preventing abuse of appellate processes.
A pivotal aspect is whether cash transactions over ₹20,000 violating Section 269SS (IT Act) render debts unenforceable under NI Act. The ruling, reinforced in citing cases, holds no—the presumption under persists unless rebutted.
In one petition, claims of lost cheque books and cash deals failed: petitioner couldn't rebut Section 139 presumption. Petition dismissed. 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2010
Analogous cases cite Sanjabij Tari alongside precedents like Muniyappan & Anr. (2001 SCC 458), overruling contrary views. 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2025 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2010
The case's mention in Uttarakhand HC circulars aligns with broader procedural emphases in related documents, such as jurisdictional adherence under 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 580 and judicial restraint 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 38. Though direct excerpts are limited, its practical invocation is clear:- Punjab & Haryana HC (CRM-M-64280-2025): permitted per SC directions. 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6533- Uttarakhand listings (e.g., ) in under , potentially invoking NI Act principles. 2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 43043
This underscores the case's role as a guiding precedent for land-unrelated but procedurally akin disputes, though primarily NI Act-focused.
For accused in cheque bounce matters:- Seek Early Compromise: Avoid appeal-stage delays to evade 7.5% costs.- Rebut Presumption Effectively: Mere claims (e.g., lost cheques) suffice not; substantial evidence needed.- IT Act Compliance Irrelevant: Cash breaches don't auto-nullify NI Act claims.
Complainants benefit from cost imposition, incentivizing genuine settlements. Courts gain a uniform framework, reducing discretion.
Limitations: Full case facts/holdings aren't in provided docs; consult official reports (2025 INSC 1158 or SCC Online SC 2069). Analysis draws from contextual citations. 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8351
Disclaimer: This post offers general insights based on public precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
In cheque bounce litigation's evolving landscape, this 2025 SC ruling promotes efficiency and fairness. Stay informed on such precedents for better outcomes.
#NIACT138 #ChequeBounce #SupremeCourtRuling
Accordingly, the case has been adjourned to 27.02.2026. Nonetheless, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. ... Accordingly, I allow the Crl.M.C, by ordering CMP No.7085/2024 to be advanced from 27.02.2026 to 18.12.2025. ... It was after the notice was ordered to the 1st respondent, in September 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra) has held that there is no necessity to issue notice to the accuse....
: 2025 SCC Online Ker 5535, came up for consideration before this Court in the matter of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. ... Both the parties shall appear before the High Court on 17.02.2026. 11. The present appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. ... To put the matter straight, we reproduce paragraph Nos. ‘19; and ‘20’ of this Court’s judgment in Sanjabij Tari(supra):- “19. Recently, the Kerala High Court in P.C. Hari vs. ... Shine Varghese & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker....
Learned counsel contended that the petitioner may be permitted to get the offence compounded or the case disposed off in view of the recent directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 INSC 1158 – Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64280-2025 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 BHUSHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER ......... ... (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 14.11.2025 Ali Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportabl....
List this matter on 20.02.2026. 8. ... Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand/1 to 3. 3. ... The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Petitioner for quashing/setting- aside the FIR No.0388 of 2025, under Sections 3/5/11 (1) of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar and directing the Respondent ... In the interregnum, it is directed that the investigation shall proceed but the present Petitione....
Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (2025 INSC 1158), the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. ... [2025:RJ-JD:53232] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. ... However, since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 7.5% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari (supra). ... Crimin....
Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (2025 INSC 1158), the sentence awarded to the aside. ... JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 08/12/2025 The matter has come up on an application (IA No.01/2025) filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing ... However, since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 7.5% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Ape....
List this case on 27.02.2026. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 23.12.2025 Shiksha ... Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. ... The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 05.10.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 556 of 2025 under Section ... No. 01 of 2025, seeking a stay on his arrest in pursuance ....
In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Brocar and another (2025) SCC Online SC 2069, the petitioner was directed to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount. ... Revision No. 72 of 2014 Date of Decision: 12.11.2025. Sukhwinder Singh Parmar f...Petitioner Versus Rama Sood ...Respondent Coram u Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ... In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any (R....
Muniyappan & Anr., reported in (2001) SCC 458 ii) Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1755 of 2010 iii) P.C Hari Vs. ... Case No. 11/2025 received a demand notice dated 17.01.2025 from one Bichitra Roy, Advocate claiming the payment of the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) as enforceable liability and on receipt of the demand notice dated 17.01.2025, the petitioner through his learned advocate ... The reply to the demand notice was sent on 10.02....
Muniyappan & Anr., reported in (2001) SCC 458 ii) Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1755 of 2010 iii) P.C Hari Vs. ... Shine Varghese & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC Online Ker 5535 10. ... Shine Varghese & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC Online Ker 5535. 8. ... Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the decision of Sanjabij Tari (Supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has overruled the aforesaid decision of the Kerala High Court in P.C Hari (Supra) and as h....
(10) State of Haryana and others Versus Bhajan Lal Ors reported in 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl.(3) 259.” (9) V.S.Achuthanandan Versus G.Kamalamma and Another reported in CDJ 2008 Ker HC 290. It is held that intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person. It is held that alleged defamation text has to be read as a whole and not to isolate certain lines or passage from the same to say that it is defamatory.
2. The dispute involved in this writ petition relates to Khata No. The name of the petitioner stood recorded in the basic year entry in respect of the aforesaid khata. The respondent No. 3 filed his objection u/s 9A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming 1/2 share on the ground that the disputed land was an ancestral property and stood recorded exclusively in the name of the petitioner. 6 comprising of plot Nos. 1592, 1595, 1621, 2016, 2022, 2025 and 2026.
He proved the steps taken by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. ( 3 ) THE prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined Sh. Gajinder Singh, Ranjit Singh, Mukhtiar singh, HC, Dr. S. C. Bhalla, Jagbir Singh SI, Keshraj @ kishori SI, Krishan Kumar @ Sri Chand, Dr. Sudha Muria, manbir Singh, Satish Chand Const. , Ram Kishore HC, sukhbir Singh SI, Ombir Singh SI and Jahur Ahmed HC in the case. Mukhtiar Singh HC, Dr. S. C. Bhalla, Jagbir singh SI, Keshraj 2 Kishore ASI, Dr. Sudha Muria, Satish chand Const. , Ram Kishore HC and Jahur Ahmed HC were exami....
His left leg had been amputated as proved by the medical evidence. Learned counsel for the claimant cited before me Mangal Kishore Kaul V/s. In the said case, there was shortening of leg by 2" and the Hon ble High Court awarded a compensation of Rs.2,10,000.
He also very much relied on the following decisions: — 2. Thanumalayaperumal Mudaliar and others v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Madras and others (1875 TLNJ, 207) and, 1. G.S. Mahalakshmi v. Shah Ranchhoddas (AIR 1970 S.C. 2025)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
