1. Loan default — SARFAESI Act measures — High Court payment order — Withdrawal of first special leave petition — Subsequent review petition dismissal — Fresh appeals against original and review orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1734
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Satheesh V.K. – Appellant
Versus
The Federal Bank Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 11752-11753 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 30056-30057 of 2024]
Decided On : 23-09-2025
Important Points
A second special leave petition is not maintainable after the first is withdrawn without permission to re-approach the court.
Subject
Civil Law - Financial Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 2(f), 2(zd), and 13(4) - Withdrawal of special leave petition - Court rules that a second special leave petition is not maintainable if the first is withdrawn without permission to re-approach the court (para 36).
(B) Maintainability of Appeals - Court finds initial action of appellant to create technical delays in repayment unavailing; appeals against earlier orders dismissed (para 36).
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Constitutional provisions under Article 226 regarding High Court authority over financial institutions and terms for repayment outlined (para 2).
Facts of the case:
Appellant, a borrower under the SARFAESI Act, defaulted on a loan leading to classification as NPA. The High Court ordered repayment terms which were contested by the appellant in multiple petitions but were ultimately upheld.
Findings of Court:
The appeals were found to lack maintainability due to procedural non-compliance and prior withdrawal of a special leave petition.
Issues: Whether a fresh special leave petition can be maintained against an earlier order after withdrawal without seeking permission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that withdrawing a petition does not permit a fresh challenge unless explicitly allowed, reinforcing adherence to public policy principles in litigation.
Result: Civil appeals are dismissed.
(B) Maintainability of Appeals - Court finds initial action of appellant to create technical delays in repayment unavailing; appeals against earlier orders dismissed (para 36).
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Constitutional provisions under Article 226 regarding High Court authority over financial institutions and terms for repayment outlined (para 2).
Facts of the case:
Appellant, a borrower under the SARFAESI Act, defaulted on a loan leading to classification as NPA. The High Court ordered repayment terms which were contested by the appellant in multiple petitions but were ultimately upheld.
Findings of Court:
The appeals were found to lack maintainability due to procedural non-compliance and prior withdrawal of a special leave petition.
Issues: Whether a fresh special leave petition can be maintained against an earlier order after withdrawal without seeking permission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that withdrawing a petition does not permit a fresh challenge unless explicitly allowed, reinforcing adherence to public policy principles in litigation.
Result: Civil appeals are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. K. S. Menon, Adv. Ms. Usha Nandini V., AOR Mr. Biju P Raman, Adv. Mr. Shashank Menon, Adv. Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Santhosh Kumar Kolkundra, Adv. Mr. N.leela Vara Prasad, Adv. Mr. Saket Jee, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kalra, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. K. S. Menon, Adv. Ms. Usha Nandini V., AOR Mr. Biju P Raman, Adv. Mr. Shashank Menon, Adv. Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Santhosh Kumar Kolkundra, Adv. Mr. N.leela Vara Prasad, Adv. Mr. Saket Jee, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kalra, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of second special leave petition after unconditional withdrawal of first — Appealability of order refusing review under Code of Civil Procedure — Application of Article 136 powers. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Unconditional withdrawal of special leave petition bars subsequent challenge — Public policy prevents repetitive litigation — Review rejection does not modify original order or create new cause of action. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 35 )
4. Principle of Order XXIII Rule 1, CPC applies to Article 136 — Unconditional withdrawal of special leave petition precludes subsequent challenge to the same order. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Is a second special leave petition maintainable if the first was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one?
No. Based on public policy and the principle in Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, a party who unconditionally withdraws a special leave petition is precluded from challenging the same order again before the Supreme Court. (Para 21 , 22 )
7. Does the dismissal of a review petition in the High Court revive the right to file a special leave petition against the original order?
No. If the initial special leave petition was withdrawn without liberty, the party cannot challenge the original order or the review rejection order, as the rejection merely affirms the original order without modification. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
8. How does the court distinguish between a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP and its unconditional withdrawal?
A non-speaking dismissal does not attract the doctrine of merger, which may allow a review in the High Court. However, an unconditional withdrawal bars a subsequent challenge to the same order entirely under public policy. (Para 19 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 33 )
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Appellant, Satheesh V.K., is a borrower within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20021[SARFAESI Act]. Undisputedly, the appellant obtained financial assistance from the respondent-Federal Bank, a secured creditor within the meaning of section 2(zd) of the SARFAESI Act, by creating equitable mortgage over properties situated in Kozhikode. However, the appellant having defaulted in his obligation to repay the loan, the respondent classified the loan account as ‘Non-Performing Asset’ (NPA) and initiated measures under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
2. Aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under Article 226 of the Constitution by presenting a writ petition2[Writ Petition (C) No.33280 of 2024]. According to the respondent, the total outstanding amount was Rs.7,77,41,321/-. The order dated 1st October, 2024 passed by the High Court disposing of the writ petition required the appellant to pay Rs.2,00,00,000/- on or before 30th October, 2024 and the remaining amount along with future interest in 12 (twelve) equal monthly instalments. The first instalment was to be paid on or before 15th November, 2024 and the remaining eleven (11) instalments were to be paid on or before 15th day of each succeeding month. The impugned order further directed that in case of failure to make payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/- or any of the subsequent instalments, as directed, the respondent would be free to proceed against the appellant under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the dues in accordance with law. Appellant was also granted liberty to approach the respondent for one time settlement after making payment of the initial sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on or before 30th October, 2024.
3. The order dated 1st October, 2024 was challenged by the appellant in a special leave petition3[Special Leave Petition (C) No.28259/2024] before this Court. Order dated 28th November, 2024 recorded on the said special leave petition by a co- ordinate Bench reads as follows:
ORDER
1. After arguing for some time and on our expressing reservation in entertaining the present petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition.
2. Permission to withdraw is granted.
3. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Having been permitted to withdraw the special leave petition, the appellant next approached the High Court with a petition4[RP No.1294 of 2024] seeking review of the order dated 1st October, 2024. Such petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 5th December, 2024.
5. Consequent upon such dismissal, these two civil appeals were presented by the appellant before this Court on 12th December, 2024. The appeal5[Civil Appeal No.11752/2025] registered prior in point of time is directed against the order dated 1st October, 2024 of disposal of the appellant’s writ petition, whereas the one6[Civil Appeal No.11753/2025] subsequently registered is directed against the dismissal of the review petition.
6. The alacrity with which the appellant moved from court to court between 1st October, 2024 (date of disposal of his writ petition) and 12th December, 2024 (date of presenting the special leave petitions before this Court giving rise to these appeals) 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.
7. Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has vehemently objected to maintainability of the appeals. He has referred to the aforesaid order dated 28th November, 2024 passed on the appellant’s previous special leave petition and contended that no liberty having been sought and/or granted by this Court to present a fresh special l
