Gupta, Lachhman Dass and Manjula Gupta v. Citizens Bank, successor to Mellon Bank (DE) National Association

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 11, 2026
• Docket: 364, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LACHHMAN DASS GUPTA and § MANJULA GUPTA, § § No. 364, 2025 Defendants Below, § Appellants, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. SK02J-05-068 CITIZENS BANK, Successor to § MELLON BANK (DE) NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: March 13, 2026 Decided: May 11, 2026

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, the record on appeal, and the

appellants’ motion, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellants, Lachhman Dass Gupta and Manjula Gupta, filed this

appeal from a Superior Court order denying their motion to set aside the judgment.

The Guptas have also filed a motion for sanctions (“the Motion”). As set forth below,

we deny the Motion and affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

(2) In 2002, Citizens Bank, as successor to Mellon Bank (DE) National

Association, sought entry of judgment against the Guptas as personal guarantors of a loan to Gupta Associates, Inc. This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s entry of

judgment against the Guptas.1

(3) In 2017, the Guptas moved to set aside the judgment, alleging fraud

under Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Superior Court determined

that the Guptas were not entitled to relief, and this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s

decision.2 In 2024, the Guptas again sought to reopen the judgment on the basis of

fraud. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that they did not establish a basis

for relief under Rule 60(b). The Guptas filed an untimely appeal, which this Court

dismissed in June 2025.3

(4) In August 2025, the Guptas again sought to reopen the judgment on the

basis of fraud. The Superior Court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

(5) In their briefs and the Motion, the Guptas make the same claims of fraud

that they have unsuccessfully raised before. They identify no basis for reversal of the

Superior Court’s judgment or an award of sanctions. If the Guptas file another appeal

from the Superior Court’s denial of a repetitive motion in this matter, the Clerk’s

Office shall issue a notice directing the Guptas to show cause why their appeal should

not be dismissed as frivolous and repetitive.

1 Gupta v. Citizens Bank, 860 A.2d 810, 2004 WL 1058409 (Del. May 4, 2004) (Table) (reargument denied after remand Sept. 28, 2024). 2 Gupta v. Citizens Bank, 198 A.3d 721, 2018 WL 3202957 (Del. June 28, 2018) (Table). 3 Gupta v. Citizens Bank, 341 A.3d 1005, 2025 WL 1576762 (Del. June, 2025) (Table).

2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED and the

judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice