Uma Kant Bansal vs Saritagarware Ramsay


The case of Uma Kant Bansal vs. Saritagarware Ramsay involves an Interim Application filed by Uma Kant Bansal against Saritagarware Ramsay in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The application is accompanied by a suit, and the matter was heard before the bench of Justice Bharati Dangre on multiple dates, including 17th January, 11th January, and 22nd February, 2024.


Uma Kant Bansal, the petitioner, has filed an Interim Application and a suit against Saritagarware Ramsay. The details of the case are not provided in the available information, but it appears to involve a dispute or legal matter between the parties.

Key Arguments

  • Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Sharad Bansal, along with other counsels, represents the petitioner and appears to have made arguments on behalf of the petitioner.
  • Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. Rohaan Cama, representing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Akshay Deshmukh, representing Defendant No. 4, have also made submissions or sought permission to file additional replies.

Court’s Observations

The court, presided over by Justice Bharati Dangre, noted the requests for filing additional replies and granted liberty to the respondents to file their replies within a specified time frame. The court also allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder thereafter.

Court’s Decision

The court ordered that the respondents be allowed to file additional replies within two weeks and directed that a copy of the replies be served on the petitioner’s counsel. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file a rejoinder within a week after receiving the replies. The matter was adjourned to 22nd February, 2024, for further proceedings.


The case demonstrates the procedural aspects of a legal matter in the High Court, including the filing of applications, submissions by counsels representing the parties, and the court’s role in managing the proceedings. The court’s decision to grant liberty to file additional replies shows a commitment to ensuring a fair and thorough consideration of the case.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *