Second SLP not maintainable if first one was withdrawn unconditionally: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on September 23 ruled that a second special leave petition (SLP) cannot be filed against the same order of a High Court if an earlier SLP against the same order was withdrawn unconditionally without liberty to re-approach the Court [Satheesh VK vs. The Federal Bank Ltd.]. .A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan dismissed two appeals filed by a borrower who had defaulted on repayment of loans taken from Federal Bank. The Court noted that after withdrawing his first SLP against a Kerala High Court order, the borrower returned with a fresh challenge against the very same order and the dismissal of a subsequent review petition..The case stemmed from loan facilities availed by the borrower, one Satheesh VK, from Federal Bank by mortgaging properties in Kozhikode. When he defaulted, the bank declared his account a non-performing asset and began recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).Challenging the recovery, Satheesh moved the Kerala High Court in 2024. The High Court directed him to deposit ₹2 crore upfront and the remaining dues in 12 instalments, failing which the bank was free to continue SARFAESI action. He was also permitted to approach the bank for a one-time settlement after paying the initial amount.Instead of complying, Satheesh approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition. However, sensing that the Bench was not inclined to entertain the matter, he withdrew the petition. He then sought review before the High Court, which was dismissed. He then quickly returned to the Supreme Court challenging both orders - the original order of the High Court and the order passed in the review petition. .The Court observed that such conduct showed a lack of intent to repay and was an attempt to buy time through technicalities.“The alacrity with which the appellant moved from court to court… without showing semblance of an inclination to repay the dues of the respondent and to buy time by resorting to technicalities are certainly factors which we propose to bear in mind while deciding these appeals,” the Bench said..The counsel for the borrower argued that a second petition was maintainable, relying on earlier rulings such as S Narahari v. SR Kumar, which had referred the issue to a larger Bench, and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. The counsel also invoked Article 136 powers of the Court, contending that justice must prevail over technical objections..However, the Supreme Court relied on the precedent in Upadhyay & Co. v. State of UP which had held that once an SLP is withdrawn without liberty to file again, a fresh petition is barred on grounds of public policy.“This is a plain and simple case where the law laid down in the previous century by a co-ordinate Bench in its decision in Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. would squarely apply,” the Court said. It underscored that the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure - preventing parties from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause after withdrawing the first, extends equally to writ petitions and SLPs.“We have no doubt that 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,” the Bench said..The Court invoked the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation), making it clear that repeated challenges cannot be permitted once a litigant elects to withdraw..Thus, the appeals were dismissed with liberty to pursue remedies before appropriate forums in accordance with law..The appellant was represented by advocates MKS Menon, Usha Nandini V, Biju P Raman, Shashank Menon and John Thomas Arakal.The respondent was represented by advocates Aljo K Joseph, Santhosh Kumar Kolkundra, N Leela Vara Prasad, Saket Jee, Siddharth Singh, Rajesh Kumar and Rohit Kalra..[Read Judgment]