Supreme Court Holds Second Special Leave Petition Not Maintainable After Unconditional Withdrawal Without Leave
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard appeals arising out of challenges to an order of the Kerala High Court and the dismissal of a review petition, concerning recovery proceedings initiated by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. The appeals were filed by Satheesh V.K., a borrower, against The Federal Bank Ltd., following a High Court direction for staged payment of dues and the appellant’s subsequent, rapid serial recourse to courts.
The Court dismissed the civil appeals for want of maintainability and clarified the principle that a party who withdrew a previous special leave petition (SLP) without obtaining permission to file afresh could not seek a second SLP against the same parent order. The bench held that allowing a fresh SLP in such circumstances would be contrary to public policy and could amount to relitigation. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also invoked the maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation)" to underscore the policy against repeated collateral attacks.
Background The dispute arose after the appellant, who had created equitable mortgages in favour of The Federal Bank, defaulted on his loan obligations. The bank treated the account as an NPA and initiated action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Kerala High Court, by order dated 1 October 2024, directed the appellant to pay Rs.2,00,00,000 on or before 30 October 2024, and the balance with future interest in 12 equal monthly instalments, while permitting the bank to proceed under the SARFAESI Act in case of default; the order also granted liberty to approach the bank for a one-time settlement after payment of the initial sum.
The appellant first filed a Special Leave Petition in this Court but withdrew it; the co-ordinate Bench recorded: "Permission to withdraw is granted." He then sought review of the High Court order, which was dismissed on 5 December 2024. The appellant then filed the present civil appeals. The respondent challenged maintainability, relying on the earlier withdrawal and Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC (no appeal against refusal of review). The appellant relied on several precedents including S. Narahari, Kunhayammed and Khoday Distilleries and argued for exercise of Article 136 powers; he also raised a separate contention about eligibility for MSME-related government notification benefits.
The Supreme Court examined the authorities and distinguished the line of cases where an SLP was dismissed on merits or where merger principles applied. It placed controlling reliance on Upadhyay & Co. and Sarguja Transport Service to conclude that the appellant, having withdrawn an earlier SLP without leave to refile, could not maintain a subsequent SLP on the same cause. The Court noted the appellant’s "alacrity" in moving between courts without showing inclination to repay the dues and found the preliminary objection to maintainability to succeed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and connected applications closed. The Court observed that, "If so advised, the appellant may pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law." The High Court’s payment schedule and the bank’s liberty to proceed under SARFAESI remained unaltered.
Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos.11752-11753/2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.30056-30057/2024) — 2025 INSC 1140 Case Title: Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Menon, Advocate (learned counsel for appellant) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, Advocate (learned counsel for respondent)