SATHEESH V.K. versus THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

SATHEESH V.K. versus THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

Where a Special Leave Petition challenging a judgment is withdrawn without liberty to re-approach this Court, a subsequent Special Leave Petition challenging the same order is not maintainable; entertaining such a second SLP would be contrary to public policy and effectively amount to revisiting an order which the litigant chose not to pursue, therefore the appeals were dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Satheesh V.K.; Respondent: The Federal Bank Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Maintainability of Second Special Leave Petition, Withdrawal of SLP Without Liberty to Re Approach, Review Petition, Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC, Public Policy Finis Litium
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Banking Law Securitisation Law Maintainability of Second Special Leave Petition Withdrawal of SLP Without Liberty to Re Approach Review Petition Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satheesh V.K.

Appellant

The Federal Bank Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a second Special Leave Petition is maintainable after the first SLP was withdrawn without liberty to re-approach
  2. 2 Whether Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC/principle against appeal from rejection of review bars challenge to the parent order after failed review
  3. 3 Applicability of public policy (finis litium) and doctrine of merger in the context of withdrawn or dismissed SLPs

Ratio Decidendi

Where a Special Leave Petition challenging a judgment is withdrawn without liberty to re-approach this Court, a subsequent Special Leave Petition challenging the same order is not maintainable; entertaining such a second SLP would be contrary to public policy and effectively amount to revisiting an order which the litigant chose not to pursue, therefore the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • The civil appeals are dismissed.
  • Connected applications, if any, stand closed.