Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 15-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14999/2020 filed by Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. against Nandhitha N.S. & others, arising from the impugned final judgment and order dated 02-12-2019 in MFA No.1716/2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
  • Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan.
  • Counsel for petitioner: Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Adv. Ms. Sindhoora Ravindran, Adv. Ms. Yadavi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AoR.
  • Counsel for respondents: Mr. Kotla Harshavardhan, Adv., Ms. Sugandha Batra, AoR, Ms. Rishbha Arora, Adv., Mr. Ritikesh, Adv., Mr. Vansh Bhatnagar, Adv., Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AoR, Mr. Jadhav Vishal, Adv.
  • Additional officers appearing: Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AoR; Mr. Aman Panwar, AAG; Mr. Sanchit Garga, AoR.

Proceedings Details

1. The Court noted compliance with its previous order dated 29.05.2026, wherein Mr. Jayamadhava P., Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, filed an affidavit stating steps taken under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

2. The affidavit identified residential land in the name of the wife of respondent No. 5. A first notice of recovery was issued on 06‑07‑2026, and a second notice was issued on the same day, with further attachment and eventual auction planned to recover the claimed amount.

3. The Additional Advocate General for the State of Karnataka indicated that the valuation of the flat may not meet the demanded Rs 50,00,000 (Fifty Lakhs), prompting the authorities to consider action on other movable/immovable properties, including bank accounts.

4. Mr. Jayamadhava P. joined the proceeding via video conferencing. When questioned why no action had yet been taken against other immovable properties or bank accounts of respondent No. 5, he offered no answer, only an apology, but assured, together with the Additional Advocate General, that appropriate and complete action would be taken to recover the Rs 50,00,000 as directed.

5. The Court, exercising its discretion, listed the matter for further hearing on 31‑07‑2026 at 02:00 p.m.

6. The Court clarified that any amount recovered in excess of Rs 50,00,000 shall not be paid or returned to respondent No. 5. The Special Deputy Commissioner is directed to comply with further directions to be issued on the next date, with an emphasis on recovering the maximum amount from respondent No. 5.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court ordered continued recovery proceedings, mandated that the Special Deputy Commissioner take comprehensive action to secure at least Rs 50 lakh, scheduled a further hearing on 31‑07‑2026, and stipulated that any surplus recovery above Rs 50 lakh will not be returned to the respondent.

Topics: Legal Enforcement, Insurance Recovery