Dismissed¶39

M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Gowramma

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026WP/33503/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (DB: D K Singh & S Rachaiah, JJ.), 05.01.2026, WP No. 33503 of 2025 (GM-CON): Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gowramma & Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Condonation of delay — 238 days' delay in filing revision petition before NCDRC (R.P. No.1204/2025) against State Commission order in F.A. No. 1376/2019 — counsel-drafting/legal-vetting explanation held neither convincing nor bonafide — inordinate delay — NCDRC dismissal upheld as free from error of law — certiorari refused — writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The NCDRC did not commit an error of law in dismissing the revision petition which was filed with a delay of 238 days. ¶39

M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:93-DB WP No. 33503 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 33503 OF 2025 (GM-CON)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶9

THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY 2^ND FLOOR, PLOT NO C-12, G-BLOCK B.K.C. BANDRA (E) MUMBAI - 400 051. REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶10

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

BRANCH MANAGER, KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SHARADA PLOT, 1^ST FLOOR CLOCK TOWER, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. HASINAL SHALINI AMARESH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O SIDDEGOWDA,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:93-DB WP No. 33503 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O ANNUR VILLAGE - 571 401. MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶19

BRANCH MANAGER MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS K.R. ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR MANDYA - 571 401.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 PASSED BY THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IN R.P. NO.1204/2025 AT NEW DELHI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:93-DB WP No. 33503 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶29

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'NCDRC') in R.P.No.1204/2025 filed by the petitioner - Company against the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in F.A. No. 1376/2019.

¶30

The reasons stated by the petitioner in affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay of 238 days in filing the revision petition has been considered by the NCDRC and found the reasons not sufficient, not convincing or bonafide .

¶31

3. The grounds stated seeking condonation of delay

¶32

has been extracted in paragraph 2(e) of impugned order, which is extracted hereunder.

¶33

"The case was sent to the counsel along with all the documents to draft the revision petition. The counsel drafted the revision petition, affidavit, applications and sent the draft back to the legal department at Mumbai. Thereafter, the legal manager of the Co. vetted the draft and sent it to the senior for approval and changes, if any. Once the draft was finalized, the revision petition

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:93-DB WP No. 33503 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

was sent to the counsel along with the affidavits documents which delay the filing of revision petition."

¶38

The NCDRC has not committed an error of law in

¶39

dismissing the revision petition which was filed with the delay of 238 days. The reasons stated for not filing the revision petition with such an inordinate delay are neither convincing nor bonafide . Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶40

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶41

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Munshi Asma Nasir Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Govindamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Maruthi Vs the Mission Director