Art. 136 | Second SLP Barred After Dismissal Of Earlier SLP & Failed High Court Review, Unless Liberty Was Reserved: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) is not maintainable once an earlier SLP has been dismissed and a subsequent review before the High Court has also failed, unless the Court has expressly granted liberty to approach it again. “there is no doubt that a party does not require any liberty to move in review before the High Court after dismissal simpliciter of an SLP by a non-speaking Order of this Court. However, if the High Court refuses to exercise review jurisdiction, to our mind, it would not be just and proper to permit the same party to approach this Court again, in the absence of specific liberty having been granted by this Court.”, observed a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while dismissing a second SLP filed against the High Court's order dismissing the review petition, filed after the first SLP was dismissed in a non-speaking order. The dispute dates back to 2010, when retired employees of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court claiming pensionary benefits. A Single Judge allowed their claims in 2012, but the judgment was overturned by a Division Bench in 2014 on the ground of maintainability. In 2022, the Supreme Court revived the Letters Patent Appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for a decision on merits. Acting on this, the Division Bench, in February 2024, ruled in favour of the pensioners. The Bank's challenge to this decision was rejected by the Supreme Court on September 23, 2024 by a non-speaking order, although the question of law was left open. Subsequently, the Bank withdrew its recall application with liberty confined to filing a review before the High Court. Following the dismissal of the review petition in April 2025, the Bank once again approached the Supreme Court by filing a fresh SLP, giving rise to the present controversy. Dismissing the SLP, the judgment emphasized that a second SLP after dismissal of the first SLP and a failed review is barred without express liberty. Meaning thereby, if first SLP was dismissed with a liberty to reagitate the issue before the Supreme Court, then only second SLP can be maintainable, otherwise, the second SLP would be non-maintainable. Since, the first SLP was dismissed with a non-speaking order, the Court said it would be impermissible for the litigant to re-agitate the issue, which had attained finality after dismissal of the review petition by the High Court, by filing second SLP. Cause Title: KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VERSUS THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1205Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Baldev Singh, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Roopesh Singh Bhadauria, Adv. Ms. Anya Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitwan Godara, Adv. Mr. Abhik Chimni, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AoR For Respondents Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avi Tandon, Adv. Ms. Meghna Tandon, AoR Mr. Mohith S. Kumar, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ami Tandon, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AoR Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Gotety, Adv. Ms. Deepali Dabas, Adv. Ms. Aadya Pandey, Adv. Ms. Monal Prasad, Adv. Ms. Sarah Sunny, Adv. Ms. Varisha Sharma, Adv.Related: Second Special Leave Petition Not Maintainable If First SLP Against Same Order Was Withdrawn Unconditionally : Supreme Court

Art. 136 | Second SLP Barred After Dismissal Of Earlier SLP & Failed High Court Review, Unless Liberty Was Reserved: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags