6 min readNew DelhiMar 26, 2026 10:18 AM ISTThe case traces back to a high-end Mercedes car originally purchased in 2023 for Rs 1.96 crore by a Mangaluru-based buyer with financial assistance from HDFC Bank Limited. (Image generated using AI)Karnataka High Court SUV seizure news: Delivering a sharp rebuke to transport authorities, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the seizure of a Rs 1.96-crore luxury Mercedes-Benz SUV and ordered the release of the vehicle, while holding both actions to be illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of statutory limits.Justice Jyoti M was hearing a writ petition filed by one Neeraj Kumar Sharma challenging the legality of the seizure of his Mercedes-AMG G63 SUV and the cancellation of its registration by transport authorities.“This Court finds such conduct on the part of the respondent authorities to be highly improper. Once this Court seizes the matter and is pending adjudication, any precipitative action taken by the authorities affecting the subject matter of the writ petition is wholly unwarranted,” the Karnataka High Court said on March 24, as it ordered the vehicle’s release.Also Read | Why complaint over a Rs 2-crore Maserati did not qualify to be taken up by national consumer body: NCDRC ruling explainedIt also quashed the cancellation of the vehicle’s registration while the matter was pending before the court.‘Exercise of power without jurisdiction’This court holds that the seizure of the motor vehicle by the officer concerned was without lawful authority.Therefore, it is declared illegal.Appropriate consequential relief regarding the vehicle shall follow in accordance with the law.The seizure of the vehicle clearly exceeded the scope of his authority and amounts to an exercise of power without jurisdiction.In the absence of proper authorisation under the relevant statutory provisions, the action taken by Mr Ranjit is without jurisdiction and, therefore, unsustainable in law.When a statute confers a specific power upon a designated class of officers, the same cannot be exercised by any other person who is not expressly authorised.Any action taken in violation of such statutory limitation is liable to be treated as illegal and unsustainable in law. Justice Jyoti M was hearing a writ petition filed by one Neeraj Kumar Sharma challenging the legality of the seizure of his Mercedes-AMG G63 SUV.‘Shocking’, deserves to be condemnedIt is shocking to note that, despite the pendency of the writ petition before this court, the respondent authorities have chosen to cancel the vehicle’s registration.Such action, prima facie, appears to be arbitrary and is liable to be deprecated.The government’s act cancelling the registration deserves to be condemned.Cancellation of the vehicle’s registration during the pendency of the writ petition is legally untenable and cannot be sustained, as the subject matter is sub judice.The action taken by the government appears to be a flagrant disregard for court proceedings, taking the law into its own hands.The investigation report and the order of cancellation of the Registration Certificate cannot be sustained in the eye of the law and are liable to be set aside.Luxury SUV entangled in fraud, recoveryThe case traces back to a high-end Mercedes car originally purchased in 2023 for Rs 1.96 crore by a Mangaluru-based buyer with financial assistance from HDFC Bank Limited.The vehicle became the subject of a criminal investigation after it was allegedly sold without the lender’s knowledge.The Delhi Police’s Crime Branch registered a First Information Report (FIR) involving multiple offences, including cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.The vehicle was seized during the investigation and later became the subject of recovery proceedings before a Dwarka court in New Delhi.Following a favourable order, the bank repossessed the SUV in September 2024, and auctioned it after settling outstanding dues through a one-time settlement of Rs 62.5 lakh.The petitioner emerged as the buyer and subsequently secured registration of the vehicle in Karnataka in January 2025.Also Read | 15 years after luxury SUV worth Rs 28 lakh stalled within 6 days of delivery, Kerala consumer wins full refundSeizure in Mysuru sparks legal battleTrouble resurfaced on June 15, 2025, when transport department officials seized the vehicle in Mysuru during a special enforcement drive targeting luxury vehicles suspected of tax evasion.Authorities alleged that the petitioner had manipulated documents to misclassify the vehicle as a lower-end model, evading substantial tax liability.They claimed the SUV, originally valued at nearly Rs 2 crore, had been falsely represented as a significantly cheaper model worth about Rs 35 lakh, causing a purported revenue loss of over Rs 78 lakh to the state.The state justified the seizure as part of a broader crackdown led by a specially constituted checking squad tasked with identifying such discrepancies.Core legal question: Who can seize a vehicle?At the heart of the dispute was a fundamental legal question – whether the officer who seized the vehicle was empowered under law to take such action.The court undertook a close examination of the statutory framework governing vehicle seizure under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.It reiterated that only specific officers such as motor vehicle inspectors (MVI) or police officers of a prescribed rank are authorised to detain or seize vehicles.In this case, the seizure had been carried out by an officer who was part of a special squad but lacked independent statutory authority.“The officer acted beyond the scope of his assignment…the power to seize cannot be assumed in the absence of express authorization,” the court held.Justice Jyoti clarified that the officer had merely been tasked with submitting a report under supervision, not exercising coercive powers such as seizure.Also Read | ‘No one above Constitution’: Punjab and Haryana High Court junks ‘immunity’ 25 years after Army truck killed toddlerRelief, directionsAllowing the writ petition, the court granted comprehensive relief to the petitioner.The investigation report was quashed.The order cancelling the vehicle’s registration was set aside.Authorities were directed to restore the registration immediately.The vehicle was ordered to be released and handed back to the petitioner without delay.Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd