Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed, as not maintainable, a second Special Leave Petition filed after an earlier SLP had been dismissed and the High Court had also declined to entertain a review, holding that a party may seek review before the High Court without any liberty, but cannot approach the Supreme Court again if the review fails unless the Court had expressly granted such liberty. The dispute related to pension-linked claims pursued by a pensioners’ welfare body against a cooperative bank and its pension trust, with the bank resisting the liability on financial-constraint grounds. While closing the second SLP, the Court clarified that, on the facts of this case, the bank’s liability would be confined to 141 pensioners and 45 spouses, totalling 186 persons.

The dispute concerns pension-related claims involving a cooperative bank, a pensioners’ welfare body, the State and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and the bank’s staff pension trust. It arose from directions issued by the High Court on May 15, 2012, followed by appellate proceedings culminating in a Division Bench decision dated February 26, 2024.

Also Read: Income Tax Act | Section 44C Cap Applies To Foreign Companies’ Overseas Head Office Expenses For Indian Business : Supreme Court

The bank’s challenge to the February 26, 2024 decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 23, 2024, after which a recall application was withdrawn on December 20, 2024 with liberty to seek review before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the review on April 11, 2025, leading to the present Special Leave Petition under Article 136 challenging the review order.

The pensioners’ body objected that a further approach to the Supreme Court was not maintainable after the earlier dismissal and the failed review, in the absence of specific liberty. The bank contended that its issues had not received consideration on merits and raised concerns about the financial outflow; the sides differed on the estimated liability, and the number of affected persons was stated as 141 pensioners and 45 spouses. The trust supported the bank, stating it would bear liability but could not pay more than the current amount. References in the judgment include Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC and Section 114 CPC, along with Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC and constitutional provisions discussed in this context.

The Court stated, “we consciously refrain from returning findings on the merits of the matter. We are of the considered opinion that the issue of maintainability, raised by respondent no.1, needs an evaluation at the threshold. It would be a futility to hear the parties on merits before adjudicating on the preliminary objection.” On the scope for review after dismissal of an SLP, the Court recorded, “The principle that a review is maintainable even after dismissal simpliciter of an SLP by this Court is not in dispute.”

Considering the prior dismissal and subsequent withdrawal with limited liberty, the Court observed, “even we are not sitting in appeal of or review over the Order dated 23.09.2024. Another chance cannot be accorded to the petitioner to agitate its case before this Court.” It also stated, “The withdrawal of the MA on 20.12.2024 was without further liberty to approach this Court once again. The review before the High Court at the instance of the Petitioner has failed. Resultantly, the original Judgment dated 26.02.2024 attains finality, albeit keeping open the question(s) of law but closing the same inter-partes, as directed vide Order dated 23.09.2024.”

Addressing the specific issue of liberty and a second approach to the Supreme Court, the Court observed: “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.” It added, “We have borne in mind Order XLVII Rule 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the decisions of this Court, quoted hereinbefore.”

The Court held: “Moreover, guided by Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited (supra), T K David (supra), Upadhyay and Co. v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1999) 1 SCC 81 and Satheesh V K (supra), and for reasons aforesaid, we accept the preliminary objection, adjudge the special leave petition as not maintainable and dismiss the same in limine.”

Also Read: Blood Samples Of Injured Persons Or Deceased Victims Must Be Collected And Blood-Grouping Reports Filed With Trial Papers: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Husband’s Appeal In Wife’s Murder Case

The Court directed: “At this stage and at the request of Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel, in the peculiar facts of the present case, 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 and this paragraph shall not constitute binding precedent. Our statement and interpretation of the law hereinabove is not affected.”

“IA No.271985/2025 is allowed; exemption from filing OT is granted. IAs No.271983/2025 & 230737/2025 are formally allowed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: 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 the 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.

Case Title: KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VERSUS THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ORS.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1416
Case Number: PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.15870/2025
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra