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…!
Legal foundation and case law clarification: The Supreme Court clarified that the judgment in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025 INSC 1158) overruled the Kerala High Court’s decision in P.C. Hari, establishing that violations of Section 269SS do not necessarily render transactions unenforceable, and emphasizing the importance of examining evidence and rebutting presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act through official records like income tax and bank documents ["SHINE VARGHESE KOIPURATHU vs STATE OF KERALA & ANR. - Supreme Court"] ["SANJABIJ TARI vs KISHORE S.BORCAR - Supreme Court"].
Rebuttal of presumptions and evidentiary standards: The Court held that presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act are rebuttable, and accused can counter them by examining Income Tax and bank officials. The absence of such evidence or reply to demand notices can be interpreted against the accused ["SANJABIJ TARI vs KISHORE S.BORCAR - Supreme Court"] ["SANJABIJ TARI vs KISHORE S.BORCAR - Supreme Court"] ["BALBIR SINGH Vs BALBIR SINGH - Punjab and Haryana"].
Offense compounding and settlement guidelines: The Supreme Court provided new guidelines for compounding offenses under Section 138 of the NI Act, mandating the accused to pay 7.5% of the cheque amount as costs if the offence is settled, and emphasized that such settlements should be encouraged to reduce judicial burden and promote justice ["BHUSHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs SUKHDEV SINGH KANG AND ANOTHER - Punjab and Haryana"] ["MOHAMMED AMEED KHAN vs MAHESH DEVNANI - Madhya Pradesh"].
Maintainability and procedural observations: The Court observed that revisional courts should not re-analyze evidence unless perversity is shown, and that in cases of amicable settlement, the accused may be acquitted after paying the prescribed costs, provided they deposit the amount within stipulated timelines. The judgment also clarified that no pre-cognizance notice is required under certain circumstances ["MR.THAYAL PERINGALAM ABDUL KAREEM vs MR.MIRSHAD EDALODIYIL - Kerala"] ["P.NANU vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Impact on maintainability and procedural correctness: Multiple judgments highlight that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption of debt arises, and the burden shifts to the accused to prove otherwise. The Court also emphasized that delays in filing or pursuing cases, or failure to produce evidence, can lead to dismissal or rejection of appeals ["Fokhoruddin Ali Ahmed, Son Of Late Intazuddin Ahmed vs Pranab Swargiary, Son Of Late Barun Swargiary - Gauhati"] ["Fokhoruddin Ali Ahmed, Son Of Late Intazuddin Ahmed vs Samsul Hoque Khandakar, Son Of Late Mafizuddin - Gauhati"] ["SMT L C BHAVANI vs SMT. SUMALATHA J - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari has reinforced that violations of procedural provisions like Section 269SS do not automatically invalidate transactions, and that the burden of rebutting presumptions under the NI Act lies with the accused, which can be done by examining official records. The case emphasizes the importance of evidence, timely settlement, and adherence to procedural guidelines. Additionally, the Court has streamlined the process for compounding offenses, encouraging amicable settlements with prescribed costs, thereby reducing unnecessary litigation and promoting justice ["SHINE VARGHESE KOIPURATHU vs STATE OF KERALA & ANR. - Supreme Court"] ["SANJABIJ TARI vs KISHORE S.BORCAR - Supreme Court"] ["BHUSHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs SUKHDEV SINGH KANG AND ANOTHER - Punjab and Haryana"].
In the realm of Indian excise law, disputes over tari—a traditional palm-derived intoxicant—often hinge on strict statutory compliance. A common query arises: Is the case of Sanjabij Tari vs Kishore S. Borcar not maintainable? This blog delves into the legal principles, drawing from key judgments and regulations, to explain why such claims typically fail without proper licensing and procedural adherence. While this analysis provides general insights, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.
Tari, derived from palm trees, is classified as an intoxicant under laws like the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. Claims involving its tapping, possession, or related rights are heavily regulated. In the context of Sanjabij Tari vs Kishore S. Borcar, the suit or petition is deemed not maintainable due to non-compliance with these restrictions. Generally, unauthorized possession or disputes outside designated channels render such actions inadmissible. Abhimanyu Behera VS State of Orissa - Crimes (1987)
Key factors include:- Statutory Definition: Tari, whether fermented or unfermented, includes juice drawn from date palms before fermentation or sunrise. Possession without a license is unlawful, with the law presuming guilt upon prosecution. Abhimanyu Behera VS State of Orissa - Crimes (1987)- Procedural Barriers: Orders related to tari fall under specific appeal mechanisms; deviations make claims non-maintainable. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1595- Licensing Imperative: Claims must align with licensing and statutory procedures, or they are barred. K. P. Sui VS State Of U. P. - 1975 0 Supreme(All) 480
Tari extraction and possession are not casual rights. The Bihar and Orissa Excise Act defines tari strictly: tari, whether fermented or unfermented, is defined statutorily as an intoxicant derived from palm trees, including the juice of date palms drawn from trees, even before fermentation or sunrise. Unauthorized tapping invites penalties, and courts presume unlawful possession absent proof of authority. Abhimanyu Behera VS State of Orissa - Crimes (1987)
Domestic exemptions exist—up to four seers for personal use under conditions—but do not extend to commercial claims or disputes like those in Tari vs Borcar. Abhimanyu Behera VS State of Orissa - Crimes (1987)
Excise authorities issue orders under sections like 11(2) or 12, appealable under Section 13. However, Any order passed by the Prescribed Authority other than the order under section 11(2) or section 12 is not appealable u/s 13. Claims bypassing these channels, such as civil suits over possession, are typically dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1595
In Sanjabij Tari vs Kishore S. Borcar, no evidence suggests compliance with these paths, aligning with broader principles where non-statutory claims fail. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1595
Applying these rules, Sanjabij Tari's claim against Kishore S. Borcar likely falters. Without documented licensing or lawful authorization, possession disputes are presumptively invalid. Courts require suits to fit within excise frameworks; otherwise, they are not maintainable. Abhimanyu Behera VS State of Orissa - Crimes (1987)K. P. Sui VS State Of U. P. - 1975 0 Supreme(All) 480
The absence of recognized proceedings in the core documents reinforces this. No specific order validates the claim, and excise presumptions tilt against the claimant. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1595
The Sanjabij Tari vs Kishore S. Borcar matter reached the Supreme Court as Criminal Appeal No. 1755/2010, listed under Section II-A in Court No. 14. SANJABIJ TARI vs KISHORE S.BORCAR This underscores its procedural scrutiny.
Subsequent citations highlight its influence. In NI Act (Section 138) compromises post-appeal rejection, courts imposed 7.5% cheque amount costs, referencing Sanjabij Tari (supra): 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). SUDAM KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15780SHAITAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13234RAKESH PUJARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13235
In another instance, it guided acquittals on compounding with costs: In light of the decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs Kishore S.Borcar & Anr, reported in 2025 INSC 1158... the applicant is required to pay 7.5% of the cheque amount. HANSRAJBHAI NATHUBHAI FALDU V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 10291
On rebutting NI Act presumptions, it clarified: Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar & Anr... has held to rebut presumptions under NI Act, it would be open for accused to examine Income Tax or Bank Officials. SMT B K PUSHPA vs SRI M U GANESH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442396
These references, while extending to cheque bounce scenarios, echo the original's emphasis on procedural rigor—mirroring excise maintainability hurdles. Other cases, like land encroachment suits or evidence production rejections, parallel the need for relevance and finality in claims. Saranghar Vithal Wadhe VS Shamrao Govinda Wadhe - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2593Manguesh Rajaram Wagle VS Suresh D. Naik Major - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 1200
Maintainability may arise if:- Claims stem from valid licenses or recognized orders.- Disputes follow statutory appeals.
However, narrow exemptions (e.g., limited domestic tapping) do not cover broader possession battles. Delays or procedural lapses, as in related property suits, further bar relief. Abhimanyu Behera VS State of Orissa - Crimes (1987)Saranghar Vithal Wadhe VS Shamrao Govinda Wadhe - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2593
To avoid dismissal:- Secure proper excise licenses before tapping or claiming rights.- Initiate via designated authorities and appeals. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1595- Document compliance meticulously to rebut presumptions. Abhimanyu Behera VS State of Orissa - Crimes (1987)
Parties should prioritize statutory channels, as courts strictly enforce them in excise matters.
The Sanjabij Tari vs Kishore S. Borcar case exemplifies how excise laws bar unauthorized tari claims. Strict definitions, licensing mandates, and jurisdictional limits render non-compliant suits not maintainable. Abhimanyu Behera VS State of Orissa - Crimes (1987)Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1595K. P. Sui VS State Of U. P. - 1975 0 Supreme(All) 480
Supreme Court involvement and downstream citations affirm procedural discipline across contexts, from excise to NI Act. For anyone navigating similar issues, adherence to law is paramount—non-compliance invites rejection.
References:1. Abhimanyu Behera VS State of Orissa - Crimes (1987): Tari definition and possession rules.2. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1595: Appeal and jurisdiction limits.3. K. P. Sui VS State Of U. P. - 1975 0 Supreme(All) 480: Statutory compliance for claims.4. SANJABIJ TARI vs KISHORE S.BORCAR: Supreme Court proceedings.5. SUDAM KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15780, HANSRAJBHAI NATHUBHAI FALDU V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 10291: NI Act cost impositions.
This overview highlights general principles; outcomes vary by facts. Seek professional legal counsel for tailored guidance.
#SanjabijTariCase, #TariTappingLaw, #ExciseSuitMaintainable
: 2025 SCC Online Ker 5535, came up for consideration before this Court in the matter of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. ... This being the view taken by this Court in Sanjabij Tari(supra) the very foundation of the impugned judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court does not survive as the legal proposition on which the impugned judgment has been rendered, has been set aside. ... To put the matter straight, we reproduce paragraph Nos. ‘19; and ‘20’ of this....
TARI Appellant(s) VERSUS KISHORE S.BORCAR & ANR. ... .103MM COURT NO.14 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1755/2010 SANJABIJ ... ) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2019.09.26 16:50:12 IST Reason: Signature Not
Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (2025 INSC 1158), the sentence liable to be set aside. ... Tari v. ... 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). ... In case, the cost is not deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authorit....
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. ... Tari v. ... 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). ... In case, the cost is not deposited by....
Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (2025 INSC 1158), the sentence awarded to the aside. ... Tari v. ... 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). ... In case, the cost is not deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority,....
In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 22 of SANJABIJ TARI v. KISHORE S. ... The appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Hence, it is sought for allowing of this appeal. To substantiate his argument, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJABIJ TARI v. KISHORE S. ... In the case on hand, accused has not adduced any evidence of the Income t....
Kishore S. Borcar [2025(6) KHC 250], wherein it has been categorically held that there no necessity to issue pre- cognizance notice to an accused alleged to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Now, notice in such complaint is not issued at the pre- cognizance stage. ... However, since there was no sufficient stamps furnished by the petitioner, notice could not be send to the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the case has been adjourned to 27.02.2026. Nonetheless, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble S....
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. ... Borcar & Another, as he is ready to pay the entire cheque amount. He is also ready to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of cost before the Appellate Court. 4. ... Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra) relating to compounding of offences under Sectio....
In light of the decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs Kishore S.Borcar & Anr, reported in 2025 INSC 1158, the applicant is required to pay 7.5% of the cheque amount as held by the Honourable Apex Court in paragraph 38(c) by way of cost with the High Court State ... In view of this, the applicant shall not be under obligation to serve the remaining sentence and the applicant shall be treated as acquitted on account of compounding of offence with the complainant. 5. .....
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar & Anr. ... Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra) has held to rebut presumptions under NI Act, it would be open for accused to examine Income Tax or Bank Officials and unless on reading of entire material would lead to an inference that complainant did not have wherewithal to lend amount as claimed ... , it would not be proper to withdraw presumption. ... It is not#H....
Xalinibai Borcar, 2014 (5) Mh. L.J. 382 and Atmaram Jagrut vs. Rajaram, 2014 (3) Mh. L.J. 463. While justifying its decision to order for measurement of the entire land, it relied upon two judgments one in case of Vasant Prabhu vs.
In support of his argument, he cited the following judgments: (2) (Surja Ram Vs. Shri Krishan Lal) RLW 1998 (1) Raj. (3) (Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) By Lrs. Vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and Others.) reported in 2005 (3) RLW. (1) (Murlidhar Vs. Nand Kishore and Others., (2006) 2 RLW 1687).
(iii) Anil Kumar Chourasia Vs. Smt. Prabha Devi and Ors. AIR 2010 Jhar 115. (iv) Vencu Gopal Tari and others Vs. Nilconta S. Xete and others, AIR 1975 Goa, Daman and Diu 32. (v) Biswanath Prasad and others Vs. Dwarka Prasad and others, AIR 1974 SC 117.
P12 Will and also placed reliance upon the following decisions:- (i) J. Naval Kishore vs. D. Swarna Bhadran, 2008 (1) CTC 97 (ii) N. Govindarajan vs. N. Leelavathy and Others, 2011 (5) CTC 287
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance on another decision of this Court in the case of Hebertsons ltd. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Sale Deed on which reliance is placed by the 2nd respondents does not show that the 2nd respondents have any right, title, interest in respect of the suit premises. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance on another decision of this Court in the case of Hebertsons ltd. vs. Kishore Rajaram Chhabria and ors. , 2000 (3) Mh. L. J. 550. vs.....
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
