Kunhayammed case - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that a second Special Leave Petition challenging the same judgment is not maintainable after an earlier SLP was dismissed and a subsequent recall petition was withdrawn without liberty to approach the Court again. The principle of finality in litigation bars re-agitating the same issue inter-partes, even if questions of law are kept open. Facts Of The Case: The litigation originated from a judgment dated May 15, 2012, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No.1679/2010, concerning pensionary benefits payable by the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited to its retirees. This judgment was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court on February 26, 2024, in LPA No.316/2012. The Bank challenged this Division Ben...

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Cou...

Tag: Kunhayammed case

Supreme Court Clarifies: No Fresh SLP Allowed After Unconditional Withdrawal of Earlier Petition

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance