(J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.)
M.B. Nagakumar __________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
S.R. Ravi Kumar and Another ____________________ Respondent(s).
SLP (C) No. 6896 of 2026, decided on May 8, 2026
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court1 thereby dismissing the writ petition preferred by the petitioner with a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- with a further direction that on failure to pay the amount of cost, the petitioner would be liable to pay an additional sum of Rs. 500/- per day for a period of one month and for the subsequent period, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per day. As a result, the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Commission Dispute Redressal Commission, Bengaluru2 issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner stood confirmed.
2. The first respondent had filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being C.C. No. 465 of 2017 against the petitioner and two others. It was the case of the first respondent that he had booked Flat No. 111, D-Block by entering into an agreement dated 07.06.2010 with the petitioner. Despite having paid the entire consideration of Rs. 44,58,001/- to the petitioner, he did not hand over the possession of the said flat. On the contrary, the said flat was stated to be sold to another purchaser. On this count, the first respondent approached the State Commission. By its judgment dated 04.04.2022, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties including the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 44,58,001/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receiving that amount from the first respondent till realisation. A further amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation was awarded. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the National Commission but the challenge was turned down.
3. On 17.10.2022, the first respondent received a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the petitioner. Since the entire award was not satisfied, the first respondent filed Execution Case No. 2 of 2023 before the State Commission seeking execution of the judgment dated 04.04.2022. The petitioner did not respond to the notice issued by the State Commission, resulting in a non-bailable warrant being issued. The order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the State Commission issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner was challenged in Writ Petition No. 7281 of 2024. This writ petition came to be dismissed on 01.04.2025. The operative order passed in the writ petition reads as under:
“In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only, payable to the 1st respondent-Consumer, within four weeks, failing which he shall be liable to pay additional sum of Rs. 500/- per day for the first month and Rs. 1,000/- per day for the period next following. Petitioner is warned of contempt action should he fail to comply with this order.
Registry is directed to hand the entire amount in deposit along with interest if any, accruing thereon, to the respondent-Consumer Sri. S.R. Ravi Kumar, forthwith. Delay in this regard will be viewed seriously.
The State Commission is requested to accomplish the execution on a warfooting keeping in view the decision of Apex Court in RAHUL S SHAH v. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI, (2021) 6 SCC 418.”
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged this order in the present proceedings.
4. On 13.02.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“1. Delay condoned.
2. Issue notice returnable on 01.04.2026.
3. In the meantime, subject to deposit of the half of the amount of Rs. 500/- per day for the first month and Rs. 1,000/- per day thereafter till compliance, within a period of four weeks from today, the execution of warrant as directed shall remain stayed.
4. The amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court within the time so stipulated. On deposit, the amount shall be kept in an interest bearing short term fixed deposit on auto renewal basis.”
Pursuant to aforesaid order, the petitioner on 06.04.2026 deposited an amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- with the Registry of this Court. The said amount, accordingly, stands invested in a short-term deposit.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we are inclined to accept the request made on behalf of the petitioner only to the extent that he be permitted to contest the execution proceedings on merits. The learned counsel for the first respondent seeks leave to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2026. He too submits that subject to cooperation by the petitioner, the execution proceedings could be adjudicated on merits. Accordingly, the petitioner shall appear before the State Commission in E.C. No. 2 of 2023 on 15.06.2026 and he shall co-operate in the disposal of the said proceedings.
6. In view of aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of by directing the parties to appear before the State Commission in E.C. No. 2 of 2023 on 15.06.2026. Subject to the petitioner undertaking to appear before the State Commission on that date and thereafter as directed, the non-bailable warrant shall stand cancelled. The first respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2026 that is lying in deposit alongwith accrued interest. The first respondent shall file an affidavit before the State Commission indicating the amount received by him as aforesaid. The said amount shall be taken into consideration as part satisfaction of the order passed by the State Commission in C.C. No. 465 of 2017 as well as the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 7281 of 2024. The State Commission shall endeavor to decide the execution petition within a period of four months from 15.06.2026. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proceedings and the same shall be decided uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6896/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-04-2025 in WP No. 7281/2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]
M.B. Nagakumar.….Petitioner(s)
Versus
S.R. Ravi Kumar & Anr.….Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
1. The Special leave petition stands disposed of in terms of the non-reportable signed order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
———
1 For short, “the High Court”
2 For short, “the State Commission”
