Kirty Agarwal vs Chief Operating Officer,

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 782
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.9836 of 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.522 of 2026)


Kirty Agarwal
…. Appellant

Versus

Chief Operating Officer and Ors.

…. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant is concerned with the disbursal of the proceeds
2.
of a life insurance policy taken out by her husband, who is no more.
th
The 6 respondent is her father-in-law who was recorded as the
nominee in the policy. The High Court directed the money to be
disbursed to the father-in-law who was the writ petitioner, on the
trite principle that a nominee holds the money in trust for the
persons entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased.
3. Admittedly, there are two succession cases bearing
Succession Case No.686 of 2025 titled as “Kirty Agarwal v. Raj
Kumari Mishra” and Succession Case No.567 of 2025 titled as “Raj
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.08.01
14:39:34 IST
Reason:
Kumari Mishra v. Kirty Agarwal” filed before the jurisdictional
Page 1 of 4

Court, one by the wife and the other by the mother; the wife of the
th
6 respondent.
4. When the matter was taken up yesterday, Shri Gaurav
Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly
submitted that the appellant is willing to forsake 50% of the
proceeds which, in any event, is duly entitled to the mother. The
wife and the mother are the only legal heirs. The appellant, hence,
gave up the contention that in fact, the entire money is due to her,
who was initially recorded as a nominee and also the claim that the
entire premiums were paid by her, since the husband was
unemployed.

We put the proposal to the learned Counsel appearing for the
5.
respondent, who sought time to take instructions. We noticed that
th
the 6 respondent was present in person before Court. The learned
counsel sought time to confirm with her client and came back and
sought one day’s time.
6. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel who
was appointed by the Legal Services Committee sought recusal on
th
the ground that the 6 respondent wanted to instruct another
counsel. We take note of the recusal by the learned counsel, but we
are not inclined to cede to such dilatory tactics.
Page 2 of 4

7. Admittedly, the policy was taken out by the husband who is
now no more. The father at the time of death was recorded as the
nominee. The appellant has given up her claims to the entire
proceeds and has withdrawn her contention with respect to the
payment of premiums of the policy. Admittedly, there were disputes
between the couple, they were estranged and there were
proceedings pending between them. A divorce petition was also
filed by the husband but before its culmination, he died on
01.10.2024, as revealed from the Death Certificate produced as
Annexure P12. The mother and the wife are the only Class I heirs
entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased.

In the above circumstances, on the trite principle that the
8.
nominee holds the money in trust for the person entitled to succeed,
th
we direct the 6 respondent to pay half of the proceeds to the
appellant herein within a period of two months from today, either by
demand draft or by direct transfer into her bank account. If the
amount is not paid within two months, it shall carry interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from the date of disbursal by the insurer to
th
the 6 respondent, till the date of payment.

Insofar as the aforesaid succession cases, the parties shall
9.
produce a copy of this order before the competent Court and if there
are no other assets to be partitioned, the cases shall be closed. The
Page 3 of 4

appellant also fairly concedes that she would not proceed with FIR
No.288/2024 filed under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 arising out of a complaint before the
CAW Cell, Delhi Cantt., pending before the Vasant Kunj Police
Station. Further proceedings in the FIR shall stand stayed for a
period of two months and on payment being made as directed
th
hereinabove, the 6 respondent would be entitled to produce the
proof of such payment before the Station House Officer, Vasant Kunj
Police Station who shall put an end to the investigation and file a
Closure Report before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
With the above observations, the appeal stands allowed
10.
making it clear that since the learned counsel appointed by the
Legal Services Committee had appeared twice before this Court,
she shall be paid the fees due to her.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)



..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
JULY 28, 2026.
Page 4 of 4