The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line: once a special leave petition (SLP) is withdrawn unconditionally, a fresh attempt on the same issue cannot be entertained. The ruling, delivered on September 23 in Satheesh VK vs. The Federal Bank Ltd., emphasizes the importance of finality in litigation and adherence to public policy.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan dismissed two appeals from a borrower who had defaulted on loans from Federal Bank. The borrower had first approached the Supreme Court with an SLP against a Kerala High Court order, then withdrew it unconditionally. Undeterred, he returned with a fresh challenge to the same High Court order and the dismissal of his review petition.
The saga began with loan facilities obtained by Satheesh VK, secured against properties in Kozhikode. After he defaulted, the bank classified his account as a non-performing asset and initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act. When he sought relief from the Kerala High Court in 2024, the court required a ₹2 crore upfront deposit and repayment of the remaining dues in 12 instalments, allowing for a one-time settlement with the bank after the initial payment.
Instead of complying, Satheesh moved the Supreme Court. Sensing resistance from the Bench, he withdrew the petition, then tried his luck with a High Court review, which was rejected. He subsequently rushed back to the Supreme Court, challenging both orders anew.
The Court highlighted that this strategy reflected an attempt to evade repayment and prolong proceedings through technical maneuvers. “The alacrity with which the appellant moved from court to court… without showing semblance of an inclination to repay the dues… are factors we bear in mind while deciding these appeals,” the Bench noted.
While the borrower’s counsel argued that a second petition could be filed under Article 136 powers, citing earlier rulings, the Supreme Court relied on the precedent set in Upadhyay & Co. v. State of UP. The Court reiterated that withdrawal of an SLP without liberty to refile bars a subsequent petition on public policy grounds.
Drawing on Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Bench underscored that parties cannot relitigate the same cause once an initial suit or petition has been voluntarily withdrawn. The Court invoked the principle interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium—public interest demands an end to litigation.
The appeals were therefore dismissed, with the Bench clarifying that remedies remain available through appropriate forums under the law.