Krishna Kumar Kalra vs Insurance Ombudsman (Western U.P. And
2026 Latest Caselaw 2598 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Krishna Kumar Kalra vs Insurance Ombudsman (Western U.P. And on 1 April, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                                                  2018:UHC:4344

               Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings or
SL.
      Date         directions and                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
              Registrar's order with
                     Signatures


                                        WPMS No.982 of 2017
                                        Krishna Kumar Kalra
                                                                              --Petitioner
                                                          Versus
                                        Insurance Ombudsman (Western U.P. and
                                        Uttarakhand) Noida and Ors.
                                                                    --Respondents
                                        Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for proposed petitioners/ applicants, appeared through V.C.

2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Today, the matter is listed on restoration application (MCC/4184/2025) and delay in filing the restoration application (IA/4185/2024) and other applications, filed by proposed petitioners/ applicants.

4. There is a delay of 2086 days in filing the present restoration application, by which the proposed petitioners/applicants want to restore the writ petition which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2017.

5. Learned counsel for respondents has filed objection to restoration application as well as to delay condonation application, which is taken on record. Misc. Application (IA/4188/2025) made therefor, stands disposed of.

6. Learned counsel for respondents submits that it is a settled proposition of 2018:UHC:4344

law that "Law helps the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights". Mere plea of illness or ignorance of proceedings without cogent material or substantiating evidence cannot constitute sufficient cause to condone such an extraordinary delay.

7. He further submits that the petitioner has failed to provide any day-to-day explanation of inordinate delay caused, as mandated under settled judicial principles as per Hon'ble Supreme Court mandate, thus, the delay condonation application is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the delay condonation application (IA/4185/2025) is rejected.

9. Since, delay condonation application is rejected, consequently, the restoration application (MCC/4184/2025), substitution application (MCC/4186/2025) and delay in filing the substitution application (IA/ 4187/2025) stand rejected.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.04.2026 PN