The Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, upholding the principle of finality in litigation. The Bench, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, held that a second SLP is not maintainable when a previous petition challenging the same order was withdrawn without specific liberty to approach the Supreme Court again.
However, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court limited the Bank’s financial liability to a specific group of pensioners to prevent further litigation.
Background of the Case
The legal battle traces back to a judgment dated May 15, 2012, passed by a Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No. 1679/2010. This decision was initially overturned by a Division Bench in 2014 but was restored to the file of the Division Bench by the Supreme Court on August 12, 2022, for a decision on merits.
On February 26, 2024, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal (LPA No. 316/2012), upholding the Single Judge’s directions. The Bank challenged this order before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the SLP (SLP (C) No. 16819/2024) on September 23, 2024. Subsequently, the Bank filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking recall of the dismissal, which was withdrawn on December 20, 2024, with liberty to approach the High Court for review.
The High Court dismissed the Review Petition on April 11, 2025, prompting the Bank to file the present SLP before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Raised
Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel for the Respondent (Pensioners Welfare Association), raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. He argued that the original judgment had already been upheld by the Supreme Court on September 23, 2024. He contended that the dismissal of the earlier SLP rendered the judgment final between the parties, and the present attempt was an impermissible effort to reopen the case de novo. He relied on the decision in T.K. David v. Kuruppampady Service Cooperative Bank Limited (2020).
Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner-Bank, argued that neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court had considered the Bank’s issues on merits. He submitted that the Bank deserved at least one “serious consideration on merits,” warning that the financial burden—estimated by him at approximately INR 250 crores—could jeopardize the Bank’s existence. He cited Manisha Nimesh Mehta v. Board of Directors, ICICI Bank (2024) to argue that a review was maintainable after a dismissal simpliciter of an SLP, and thus a challenge to the review order should be heard.
Mr. Shadan Farasat, appearing for the Staff Pension Trust (Respondent No. 4), supported the Bank, stating the Trust was unable to pay more than what was currently being disbursed.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court accepted the preliminary objection, holding that the petition was not maintainable.
On Maintainability and Finality of Litigation The Court observed that the matter had travelled to the Supreme Court for the third time. The Bench relied on the principle laid down in Upadhyay and Co. v. State of U.P. (1999) and the recent decision in Satheesh V K v. Federal Bank Limited (2025).
The Court noted:
“The maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation) would apply in all fours when it is found that proceedings challenging an order were not carried forward by withdrawing the special leave petition and the litigant has returned to the same court after some time mounting a challenge to the self-same order which was earlier under challenge and such challenge had not been pursued.”
The Bench clarified that while a review before the High Court is maintainable after a simple dismissal of an SLP, the remedy does not automatically allow the party to approach the Supreme Court again if the review fails, unless specific liberty was granted.
“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.”
On High Courts Following Precedents The Court also addressed the issue of High Courts deferring decisions due to pending references to larger benches. Citing Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2023), the Court laid down the position in law:
“We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench.”
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in limine.
However, taking note of the peculiar financial constraints argued by Mr. Sibal, the Court issued a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Bench clarified that the liability of the Petitioner-Bank would be limited to the specific individuals involved in the litigation.
“We make it clear that the liability/claims against/on the petitioner-Bank would be limited to only 141 persons and 45 spouses of the original writ petitioners, totalling 186. The instant direction is made in the special facts herein, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. We are persuaded to so direct to prevent further litigation…”
The Court specified that this direction would not constitute a binding precedent.
Case Details
- Case Title: Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors.
- Case No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15870/2025
- Coram: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1416
