Legal Review and Analysis of Satheesh V K vs The Federal Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 1140

1. Name of the Judgment

Satheesh V.K. vs The Federal Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1140, Civil Appeal Nos. 11752-11753 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: September 23, 2025
Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice K.V. Viswanathan

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets and applies the following legal provisions and principles:

• Article 136 of the Constitution of India: Special Leave Petition jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

• Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Governs withdrawal of suits and the bar on fresh litigation without liberty.

• Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC: Bars an appeal against an order rejecting a review petition.

• The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act): Relevant to the underlying loan recovery proceedings.

• Judicial Precedents: Key cases include Upadhyay & Co. vs State of U.P. (1999), Kunhayammed vs State of Kerala (2000), and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (2019).

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Appellant: Satheesh V.K., a borrower whose loan account was classified as an NPA.

• Respondent: The Federal Bank Ltd., a secured creditor.

• Procedural History:
  The High Court of Kerala disposed of the appellant's writ petition with a repayment schedule.
  The appellant filed an SLP in the Supreme Court but withdrew it unconditionally.
  The appellant then filed a review petition before the High Court, which was dismissed.
  The appellant filed a second set of SLPs before the Supreme Court challenging both the original High Court order and the review dismissal order.

• Core Legal Question: Whether a second Special Leave Petition is maintainable after the first was withdrawn unconditionally without liberty to file a fresh one.

4. Core Legal Analysis: The Principle of Finality and Bar on Re-litigation

The Central Issue

The primary issue was the maintainability of a second Special Leave Petition under Article 136 challenging the same High Court order after the first SLP was withdrawn unconditionally, and subsequently, a review petition before the High Court was dismissed.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Legal Principles

The Court conducted an in-depth analysis of the principles governing the withdrawal of petitions and the bar on subsequent challenges. The reasoning is structured around the following key points:

a. Application of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC by Analogy
The Court reaffirmed the principle established in Upadhyay & Co. vs State of U.P. that the doctrine underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC applies to petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution (writ petitions) and by extension, to Article 136 (Special Leave Petitions). This doctrine is based on public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure finality in litigation.

• If a petitioner withdraws a petition without seeking or obtaining liberty to file a fresh one, they are precluded from challenging the same order again.

b. Distinction from Kunhayammed and Khoday Distilleries
The appellant relied on these cases to argue that a review is maintainable after an SLP is dismissed, and thus a fresh SLP should also be allowed. The Court distinguished these precedents:

• Kunhayammed dealt with the doctrine of merger and held that a review is maintainable if the SLP was dismissed by a non-speaking order (as merger does not apply). It did not address the scenario of an unconditional withdrawal of an SLP.

• The factual matrix in the present case was fundamentally different: the appellant withdrew the first SLP sensing the Court's disinclination to entertain it, and no liberty was sought or granted to file a fresh challenge.

c. No Appeal Lies Against Review Dismissal
The Court underscored Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC, which explicitly states that no appeal lies from an order rejecting a review petition. A review petition, even if dismissed, does not alter the original decree/order; it merely affirms it. Therefore, a challenge must always be to the original order, not the review dismissal.

d. Public Policy and the Maxim Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium
The Court emphasized the paramount public interest in achieving finality to litigation ("it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation"). Allowing a litigant to repeatedly challenge the same order through successive petitions, after having withdrawn an earlier challenge, would be contrary to this principle and an abuse of the judicial process.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection regarding maintainability and dismissed the civil appeals. The Court held that the second SLPs were not maintainable as the first SLP was withdrawn unconditionally without liberty to file afresh.

5. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Q1. In Satheesh V.K. vs The Federal Bank Ltd., why did the Supreme Court hold the second Special Leave Petition to be not maintainable?

A) Because the High Court's review petition was dismissed on merits.
B) Because the appellant had not defaulted on the loan repayment.
C) Because the first SLP was withdrawn unconditionally without liberty to file a fresh petition.
D) Because the SARFAESI Act bars a second appeal.

Correct Answer: C) Because the first SLP was withdrawn unconditionally without liberty to file a fresh petition.

Q2. According to the Supreme Court's judgment, which legal principle from the Code of Civil Procedure was applied by analogy to Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 to bar a fresh challenge?

A) The principle of res judicata under Section 11.
B) The doctrine of merger under Section 96.
C) The provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 concerning withdrawal of suits.
D) The inherent powers under Section 151.

Correct Answer: C) The provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 concerning withdrawal of suits.