LexSATHEESH V.K. versus THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1255 : 2025 INSC 1140 Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd. (Civil Appeal No(s). 11752-11753 of 2025) 23 September 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the maintainability of the second SLP challenging the same order where the first SLP was withdrawn without leave to re-approach. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.136 – Maintainability of the second Special Leave Petition, when the first was withdrawn without liberty – Appellant defaulted in his obligation to repay loan to the respondent-Bank – Respondent classified the loan account as ‘Non-Performing Asset’ and initiated measures u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act – Appellant filed writ petition, which was disposed of by the High Court requiring the appellant to pay Rs.2 crores by a stipulated date and the remaining amount in instalments – Appellant challenged this order in SLP before this Court and the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn – Appellant then filed a review petition in the High Court seeking review of the order passed by the High Court and the same was dismissed – Consequent thereupon, the appellant filed two civil appeals against the original High Court order and the order dismissing the review petition – Maintainability: Held: It is not a permissible practice to challenge the same order over again after withdrawing the special leave petition without obtaining permission of the court for withdrawing it with liberty to move for special leave again subsequently – Nature of power exercisable by this Court u/Art.136, would apply in the first round when a judgment and order is challenged and not when the challenge to the same judgment and order is withdrawn * Author 1256 [2025] 9 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports in the first round and a second chance is attempted without having obtained the permission of the Court to re-approach it – Entertaining a special leave petition in a case of the present nature would be contrary to public policy and can even tantamount to sitting in appeal over the previous order of this Court which has attained finality – Maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation) would apply in all fours when it is found that proceedings challenging an order were not carried forward by withdrawing the special leave petition and the litigant has returned to the same court after some time mounting a challenge to the self-same order which was earlier under challenge and such challenge had not been pursued – This is a course of action which cannot be justified either in principle or precept – Preliminary objections to the maintainability of the appeals upheld – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.13(4) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.XLVII r.7(1). [Paras 26, 35] Case Law Cited Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and Others [1998] Supp. 3 SCR 234 : (1999) 1 SCC 81 – relied on. S. Narahari and Others v. S.R. Kumar and Others [2023] 10 SCR 1010 : (2023) 7 SCC 740 – distinguished. N.F. Railway Vending and Catering Contractors Association Lumding Division v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). 17501-17502/2024; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal [1955] 1 SCR 941 : AIR 1955 SC 65; Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala & Another [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 538 : (2000) 6 SCC 359; Khoday Distilleries Limited (Now Known as Khoday India Limited) and Others v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal (Under Liquidation) Represented by the Liquidator [2019] 3 SCR 411 : (2019) 4 SCC 376; Vasantalata Kom Vimalanand Mirjankar Rep. by G.P.A. Holder v. Deepa Mavinkurve & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 36933/2025 – held inapplicable. Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa (2012) 12 SCC 383; Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji (1971) 3 SCC 844; S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1257 Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd. Another [1993] Supp. 2 SCR 1 : (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595; Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India & Ors. [2000] 3 SCR 1081 : (2000) 6 SCC 224; Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and Others v. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani [2003] Supp. 5 SCR 230 : (2004) 1 SCC 497; Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda and Another [2004] 2 SCR 422 : (2004) 3 SCC 75; M/s Pro Knits v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.