Supreme Court Holds Second SLP Not Maintainable Where Earlier SLP Was Dismissed, Limits Pension Liability To 186 Beneficiaries

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard a Special Leave Petition filed by a cooperative bank challenging the Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in review proceedings and considered a preliminary objection on maintainability under Article 136 of the Constitution. The principal issue was whether the petitioner could invoke this Court after an earlier SLP in the same lis had been dismissed on 23.09.2024 and a subsequent review in the High Court was dismissed on 11.04.2025.

The Court found the preliminary objection to be tenable and adjudged the present SLP as not maintainable, dismissing it in limine. It surveyed a series of precedents — including Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P., T K David v. Kuruppampady Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bussa Overseas & Properties (P) Ltd., Manisha Nimesh Mehta v. ICICI Bank and recent decisions such as Satheesh V K and S Narahari — and emphasised the limited scope of reopening litigation after an earlier SLP was withdrawn or dismissed without specific liberty to re-approach this Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Therefore, 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.” The bench recorded that “another chance cannot be accorded to the petitioner to agitate its case before this Court,” and held that the original Division Bench judgment of 26.02.2024 attained finality inter partes.

Background
The dispute arose out of CWP No.1679/2010 decided by a Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 15.05.2012. Letters Patent Appeals and related proceedings followed; a Division Bench judgment of 03.09.2014 disposed of matters, and this Court on 12.08.2022 restored LPA No.316/2012 to the High Court's file for fresh disposal. The High Court on 26.02.2024 allowed LPA No.316/2012 and set aside portions of the 15.05.2012 order as impugned by the pensioners’ association. The petitioner bank challenged that order before this Court by SLP (C) No.16819/2024, which this Court dismissed on 23.09.2024 stating it saw “absolutely no occasion to interfere.” A Miscellaneous Application to recall the dismissal was withdrawn on 20.12.2024 with liberty to approach the High Court in review. The High Court dismissed the review petition on 11.04.2025. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present SLP.

Respondent no.1 raised the maintainability objection, relying on T K David and related precedents that disallowed successive challenges where the earlier SLP had been dismissed and no liberty had been given to re-approach this Court. The petitioner, through senior counsel, submitted that the legal issues had not been adjudicated on merits and relied on Manisha Nimesh Mehta to argue that dismissal simpliciter of an SLP did not bar a review in the High Court or a fresh SLP in appropriate circumstances. On facts the Court noted contesting estimates of financial liability — respondents suggested roughly INR 30–35 crores, while the petitioner estimated up to INR 250 crores — and that about 141 pensioners and 45 spouses (total 186 persons) were affected.

After weighing precedent and the procedural history, the Court accepted the preliminary objection and dismissed the SLP as not maintainable. Exercising powers under Article 142, the bench made a limited factual direction that liability and claims would be confined to the 141 pensioners and 45 spouses to prevent further litigation; it clarified that this direction was made in the special facts and would not constitute binding precedent. The Court also allowed IA No.271985/2025 and granted exemption from filing the original transfer.

Case Details:
Case No.: PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.15870/2025 (2025 INSC 1416)
Case Title: Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited V. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kavin Gulati, Senior Counsel (for R1); Mr. Shadan Farasat, Senior Counsel (for R4)