Sign in
Constitutional Law

Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd. 2025 INSC 1140 - - Second SLP After Withdrawal Of First

CaseCiter

• 4 min read

Constitution of India - Article 136 -The principle flowing from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC is also applicable to special leave petitions - A second special leave petition would not be maintainable at the instance of a party, who elects not to proceed with the challenge laid by him in an earlier special leave petition and withdraws such petition without obtaining leave to file a fresh special leave petition; if such party applies for a review before the court from whose order the special leave petition was initially carried and the review fails, then he can neither challenge the order rejecting the review nor the order of which review was sought. (Para 23)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 7(1)- Whenever a party aggrieved by a decree or order seeks a review thereof based on parameters indicated in Section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC and the application ultimately fails, the decree or order under review does not suffer any change. It remains intact. In such an eventuality, there is no merger of the decree or order under review in the order of rejection of the review because such rejection does not bring about any alteration or modification of the decree or order; rather, it results in an affirmance of the decree or order. Since there is no question of any merger, the party aggrieved by the rejection of the review petition has to challenge the decree or order, as the case may be, and not the order of rejection of the review petition. On the contrary, if the petition for review is allowed and the suit or proceedings is placed for rehearing, Rule 7(1) permits the party aggrieved to immediately object to the order allowing the review or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit, i.e., after rehearing of the matter in dispute. (Para 24)

Legal Maxim - Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium - it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation - This 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. (Para 35)

Case Info

Case Name and Neutral Citation

  • Case Name: Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
  • Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1140

Coram (Judges)

  • Justice Dipankar Datta
  • Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Judgment Date

  • Date: September 23, 2025

Caselaws and Citations Referred

  1. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West BengalAIR 1955 SC 65
  2. Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji(1971) 3 SCC 844
  3. S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another1993 Supp (4) SCC 595
  4. Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India & Ors.(2000) 6 SCC 224
  5. Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala & Another(2000) 6 SCC 359
  6. Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and Others v. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani(2004) 1 SCC 497
  7. Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda and Another(2004) 3 SCC 75
  8. 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) 4 SCC 376
  9. S. Narahari and Others v. S.R. Kumar and Others(2023) 7 SCC 740
  10. N.F. Railway Vending and Catering Contractors Association Lumding Division vs. Union of India & Ors.SLP (C) Nos.17501-17502/2024
  11. M/s Pro Knits v. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank & Ors.(2024) 10 SCC 292
  12. Shri Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution and Another v. Board of Directors of NKGST Co-op. Bank Ltd and Others2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566
  13. Vasantalata Kom Vimalanand Mirjankar Rep. by G.P.A. Holder vs. Deepa Mavinkurve & Ors.SLP (C) Diary No.36933/2025
  14. Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa(2012) 12 SCC 383
  15. Sandhya Educational Society v. Union of India(2014) 7 SCC 701
  16. Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and Others(1999) 1 SCC 81
  17. Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT(1987) 1 SCC 5

Statutes/Laws Referred

  • Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)
    • Section 2(f)
    • Section 2(zd)
    • Section 13(4)
  • Constitution of India
    • Article 136
    • Article 226
    • Article 141
    • Article 32
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
    • Order XLVII Rule 7(1)
    • Order XXIII Rule 1
    • Section 114
    • Order XLVII
  • Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
    • Section 9
  • Notification dated 29th May, 2015 (Central Government, under MSME Act)
Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd. 2025 INSC 1140 - Doctrine Of Merger - Second SLP After Withdrawal Of First
Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd. 2025 INSC 1140 - Doctrine Of Merger - Second SLP After Withdrawal Of First.pdf
309 KB
download-circle

Suggested Readings:

Second SLP Not Maintainable If No Such Liberty Was Granted While Permitting Withdrawal Of First SLP: Supreme Court
The Bench clarified that once a litigant withdraws a special leave petition (SLP) without seeking liberty to re-approach, a fresh SLP against the same order is not maintainable.
VerdictumMuhib Makhdoomi
Order Rejecting Review Cannot Be Challenged; Only Original Decree/Order Appealable : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep. 23) ruled that an order rejecting a review petition cannot be independently challenged, as it merely affirms the original order or decree. An aggrieved party must…
Live LawYash Mittal