A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in T. K. David v. Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. authoritatively settles the question of maintainability of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution when filed solely against an order rejecting a review petition, after the dismissal of an earlier SLP against the main judgment. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine of finality of litigation and clarified the contours of the doctrine of merger in the context of review proceedings. The Court held that once an SLP challenging the principal judgment of the High Court has been dismissed, the said dismissal attains finality between the parties. Consequently, a subsequent SLP challenging only the order rejecting review is not maintainable, as no relief can be granted without indirectly unsettling the final judgment. The Bench emphasised that Article 136 is a discretionary jurisdiction, and the Court will not entertain petitions where no effective relief can be granted. By relying upon earlier authoritative precedents such as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Yashwant Singh Negi and Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court reinforced consistency, judicial discipline, and respect for finality. The decision reiterates that review proceedings cannot be used as a backdoor to re-litigate concluded issues, nor can repeated challenges be permitted under the guise of procedural technicalities. The ruling strengthens the jurisprudence on abuse of process and ensures certainty in judicial outcomes, particularly in service and employment disputes involving prolonged litigation.

Keywords:
Special Leave Petition; Review Petition; Doctrine of Merger; Finality of Judgments; Abuse of Process; Article 136

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The litigation history underlying the present judgment reflects a prolonged service dispute entangled in multiple layers of adjudication. The petitioner, an employee of a co-operative bank, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings culminating in dismissal. Over the years, the dispute traversed statutory forums under co-operative law, the High Court, and eventually the Supreme Court. The case exemplifies how repeated challenges, though procedurally permissible in isolation, may cumulatively undermine the principle of finality.

The Supreme Court was confronted not with the merits of the disciplinary action, but with a narrow yet significant procedural question—whether an SLP is maintainable against an order dismissing a review petition, when the main judgment had already been unsuccessfully challenged before the same Court. The background reveals that the petitioner had exhausted not only statutory remedies but also constitutional remedies including review and curative petitions before the Supreme Court itself.

This context is vital because it situates the judgment within the broader constitutional philosophy of judicial restraint. The Court was required to balance access to justice with the need to prevent abuse of judicial process. The case also revisits and clarifies the ratio in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, particularly on the distinction between maintainability of review and maintainability of a subsequent SLP. The judgment thus forms part of a consistent line of authorities discouraging endless litigation and reinforcing the sanctity of concluded judgments.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner was employed with Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings following allegations of misconduct. A domestic enquiry culminated in an order of dismissal dated 20.03.2003. The petitioner challenged the dismissal before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, which by its award dated 18.08.2010, modified the punishment to reduction to a lower rank.

Both parties were aggrieved. Appeals were preferred before the Co-operative Tribunal, which by judgment dated 16.08.2011, substituted the punishment with compulsory retirement with terminal benefits. The petitioner challenged this decision by filing a writ petition before the Kerala High Court, which was dismissed on 31.07.2013. A writ appeal was also dismissed on 11.03.2015.

The petitioner thereafter approached the Supreme Court through SLP (C) No. 24231 of 2015, which was dismissed on 21.08.2015. A review petition and a curative petition before the Supreme Court also failed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review petition before the High Court seeking review of the writ appeal judgment, which was dismissed on 06.02.2020. The present SLP challenged only this latter order rejecting review.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 is maintainable against an order rejecting a review petition when the main judgment has already attained finality?

ii. Whether dismissal of an earlier SLP bars a subsequent challenge indirectly affecting the same judgment?

iii. Whether any effective relief can be granted without unsettling a final judgment?

F) PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the petitioner submitted that dismissal of the earlier SLP did not operate as res judicata. It was argued that as per Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, dismissal of an SLP does not result in merger, thereby preserving the statutory right of review. The petitioner contended that the High Court failed to correct manifest injustice and that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate and politically motivated. It was further urged that the review court had jurisdiction to re-examine errors apparent on record.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent argued that the present SLP was not maintainable, as the main judgment had already attained finality upon dismissal of the earlier SLP. It was contended that entertaining the present petition would amount to indirectly reopening a concluded judgment. Reliance was placed on precedents emphasising that review proceedings cannot be used to circumvent finality.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 136 of the Constitution of India
ii. Doctrine of Merger
iii. Principle of Finality of Judgments

I) JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, holding that it was not maintainable. The Court observed that the dismissal of the earlier SLP against the main judgment rendered the judgment final between the parties. Any challenge to the order rejecting review would necessarily seek to disturb the final judgment, which is impermissible.

The Court clarified that while Kunhayammed permits filing of a review notwithstanding dismissal of an SLP, it does not follow that a further SLP against rejection of review is maintainable. The Bench relied extensively on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Yashwant Singh Negi and Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reiterating that no merger occurs when review is dismissed, and the aggrieved party must challenge the main judgment.

The Court emphasised that Article 136 is discretionary and will not be invoked where no relief can be granted. The judgment underscores judicial discipline, consistency, and respect for finality.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi is that a Special Leave Petition challenging only an order rejecting a review petition is not maintainable when the main judgment has already been unsuccessfully challenged and has attained finality. The Court held that permitting such petitions would defeat the principle of finality and encourage abuse of process.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that consistency and finality are cornerstones of the administration of justice. Endless challenges erode public confidence in the judicial system. These observations, though not strictly necessary for the decision, reinforce the philosophy underlying procedural law.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Courts should not entertain SLPs where no effective relief can be granted.
ii. Review jurisdiction must not be converted into an appellate forum.
iii. Finality of judgments must be respected to preserve judicial discipline.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment represents a firm reaffirmation of procedural discipline under Article 136. It sends a clear message that the Supreme Court will not permit repeated attempts to reopen concluded matters through indirect challenges. The decision strengthens certainty in litigation, particularly in service matters where disputes often linger for decades. By reinforcing established precedents, the Court ensures predictability and stability in constitutional adjudication.

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
ii. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Yashwant Singh Negi, [2013] 2 SCR 550
iii. Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, [2016] 1 SCR 266

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India – Article 136