New Delhi, Sept 23 – In a clear message against repeated litigation, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed two civil appeals filed by Kozhikode businessman Satheesh V.K., who had defaulted on a ₹7.77-crore loan from Federal Bank. The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K.V. Viswanathan held that Satheesh could not “take a second bite at the cherry” after voluntarily withdrawing his first special leave petition (SLP) challenging a Kerala High Court order.
Background
Satheesh had mortgaged property to secure a hefty loan but fell behind on payments, prompting Federal Bank to classify the account as a non-performing asset and begin action under the SARFAESI Act, which allows banks to seize secured assets. In October 2024, the Kerala High Court gave him partial relief, asking him to deposit ₹2 crore by 30 October and repay the rest in twelve instalments. When he failed to meet those terms, he first approached the Supreme Court but withdrew his SLP on 28 November 2024 after sensing the court’s reluctance to entertain it. He then sought a review before the High Court, which was rejected in December 2024, and quickly filed fresh appeals before the apex court.
Read also: Supreme Court Slams Madhya Pradesh Department for Withholding Pension Over Government Housing
Court’s Observations
The bench was unimpressed with the zig-zag litigation. “The alacrity with which the appellant moved from court to court without showing any inclination to repay is a factor we bear in mind,” Justice Datta remarked.
Federal Bank’s counsel argued that no liberty had been granted to re-file after the withdrawal and cited earlier rulings to show a second SLP is barred. Satheesh’s lawyer countered that the Supreme Court’s extraordinary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution should override technicalities, pointing to various precedents.
Read also: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Against Jabalpur Official, Flags Delay and Possible Vengeance in
But the judges disagreed. They stressed that public policy demands an end to endless litigation, quoting the Latin maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium- it is in the public interest that there be an end to lawsuits. Referring to the 1999 Upadhyay & Co. decision, the court said a party who withdraws an SLP without explicit liberty “cannot be allowed to challenge the same order over again.”
Decision
Finding the appeals “not maintainable,” the bench dismissed them outright. “Entertaining a special leave petition in a case of the present nature would be contrary to public policy,” the court declared, adding that Satheesh may pursue any other remedy “before the appropriate forum in accordance with law,” but the Kerala High Court’s repayment order remains undisturbed.
Case: Satheesh V.K. vs. Federal Bank Ltd. – Supreme Court on Second SLP After Withdrawal
Date of Judgment: 23 September 2025