Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011752-011753 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 58296/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Both Judges concur; no dissenting opinion |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on maintainability of Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 and withdrawal consequences |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Appellate & Procedural Law (Constitution Article 136; CPC Orders XXIII & XLVII) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Borrower defaulted on secured loan; bank invoked SARFAESI Act. High Court directed structured payment. Appellant filed SLP, withdrew it unconditionally when SC showed reluctance. He then sought review in the High Court (dismissed) and filed a second SLP against both the parent and review orders. Respondent objected to maintainability on grounds of withdrawal without leave and CPC bar on appeals from reviews. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts and litigants in Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering maintainability of successive petitions under Article 136; litigants generally |
| Distinguishes | S. Narahari & Others v. S.R. Kumar & Others (2023 7 SCC 740) |
| Follows | Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. (1999 1 SCC 81) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that an SLP withdrawn without leave to refile bars any subsequent SLP on the same order.
- Confirms that single‐line or non‐speaking dismissals of SLPs do not merge the parent order into the dismissal, but withdrawal still precludes “second bites.”
- Emphasises that Order XLVII Rule 7(1), CPC forbids appeals from review rejections; the original order remains the only appealable decree.
- Highlights the public‐policy rationale against bench‐hunting and repetitive litigation (interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium).
- Advises practitioners to seek explicit leave when withdrawing SLPs if there is any intention to challenge the order later.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Maintainability Objection
- Respondent invokes the earlier SLP withdrawal order (28 November 2024) and CPC Order XLVII Rule 7(1) to bar the second petition.
- Appellant counters with S. Narahari referral, Article 136’s extraordinary jurisdiction, and various precedents.
- Precedent Upadhyay & Co. (1999 1 SCC 81)
- Withdrawal of a writ petition without leave to refile bars subsequent petitions (public‐policy rule in Order XXIII Rule 1, CPC).
- Extended by analogy to appellate jurisdiction under Article 136.
- Order XLVII Rule 7(1), CPC
- No appeal lies from an order refusing review; the parent decree/order remains intact and must be directly challenged.
- Doctrine of Merger and Non‐Merger
- Kunhayammed: non‐speaking dismissals of SLPs do not merge the parent order into the dismissal.
- Nonetheless, they do not override the public‐policy bar on refiling after withdrawal.
- Distinguishing Conflicting Authorities
- Khoday Distilleries upheld review after SLP dismissal but did not consider the withdrawal‐without‐leave scenario in Upadhyay.
- S. Narahari has been referred to a larger Bench; no binding override of Upadhyay.
- Public‐Policy Maxim
- interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: finality in litigation and prevention of bench‐hunting.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- A second SLP is maintainable under Article 136 despite prior withdrawal.
- Article 136’s extraordinary jurisdiction must be wielded to do justice, unshackled by technicalities.
- Reliance on S. Narahari (reference to larger Bench), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills, Kunhayammed, Khoday Distilleries, and other precedents.
- On merits, claimed entitlement to MSME benefits under 2015 Notification (invoked can’t be denied).
Respondent (Federal Bank)
- Initial SLP was unconditionally withdrawn; no leave was granted to refile—barred by public‐policy rule in Order XXIII Rule 1, CPC (Upadhyay).
- Order XLVII Rule 7(1), CPC prohibits appeal from review rejection; appellant must directly challenge the original High Court order.
- Permitting a second SLP would contravene finality and open floodgates to repetitive litigation.
Factual Background
Satheesh V.K., a borrower secured by equitable mortgage, defaulted on his loan. Federal Bank classified the account as NPA and invoked SARFAESI Section 13(4). The Kerala High Court stayed enforcement, directing staged payments and permitting a one‐time settlement. Appellant filed an SLP in the Supreme Court but withdrew it without leave to refile. He then sought review of the High Court order (dismissed) and filed a second SLP challenging both orders. The Bank objected to maintainability, leading to dismissal of the appeals.
Statutory Analysis
- SARFAESI Act, Section 13(4): Initiation of secured‐creditor measures on borrower default.
- Constitution, Article 136: Discretionary appellate jurisdiction—“extraordinary power”—bounded by public policy and procedural rules.
- CPC Order XXIII Rule 1: Withdrawal of suit/petition without leave precludes instituting a fresh one.
- CPC Order XLVII Rule 7(1): Non‐appealability of orders refusing review.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
All Judges concurred; no dissenting or separate opinions.
Procedural Innovations
None; the judgment clarifies existing appellate procedure rather than creating new mechanisms.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed