The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Citizens Bank, affirming a lower court's decision against Lachhman Dass Gupta and Manjula Gupta. The court's ruling, issued on May 11, 2026, stems from the Guptas’ repeated attempts to set aside a judgment related to a loan guarantee. This decision affects the Guptas, who have been embroiled in legal disputes over their financial obligations since 2002.

The case began when Citizens Bank, as the successor to Mellon Bank, sought a judgment against the Guptas for their role as personal guarantors of a loan to Gupta Associates, Inc. The bank's actions were initiated after the company defaulted on its loan. The Guptas have challenged the judgment multiple times, claiming fraud, but their appeals have consistently been denied.

The dispute reached the Delaware Supreme Court after the Guptas filed their latest appeal against a Superior Court order that denied their motion to set aside the judgment. The Guptas argued that they were victims of fraud, but the court found no merit in their claims. This case has seen several iterations, with the Guptas attempting to reopen the judgment on several occasions since 2017.

In its ruling, the Delaware Supreme Court addressed the Guptas' claims and the history of the case. The court noted, "The Guptas make the same claims of fraud that they have unsuccessfully raised before." The court emphasized that the Guptas had not identified any new basis for overturning the Superior Court's judgment or for receiving sanctions against Citizens Bank.

The court also pointed out that the Guptas had filed an untimely appeal in 2025, which was subsequently dismissed. The Supreme Court's decision effectively upholds the previous rulings made by the Superior Court, which had consistently found that the Guptas did not meet the necessary criteria under Rule 60(b) to set aside the judgment.

Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. led the ruling, which included Justices Valihura and Griffiths. The court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings, particularly regarding the timeliness of appeals and the need for substantial evidence when alleging fraud.

This ruling has significant implications for the Guptas, who now face the prospect of further legal challenges if they attempt to appeal again. The court warned that any future appeals on the same grounds could be deemed frivolous and repetitive, potentially leading to sanctions against them.

The outcome of this case highlights the challenges individuals face when dealing with financial obligations and the legal system. It serves as a reminder that repeated legal challenges without new evidence or valid claims can lead to unfavorable outcomes in court.

Looking ahead, the Guptas may consider their options for further legal action, but the court's clear stance on their previous claims suggests that any future attempts to reopen the case may not succeed. The court's ruling also sets a precedent regarding the limits of appeals in cases involving claims of fraud, emphasizing the need for substantial and new evidence in order to challenge existing judgments.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases or further actions the Guptas may pursue. The court's firm stance may discourage further attempts to revisit this matter unless new evidence comes to light.