Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

MANU SHARMA S/O LATE LALIT KUMAR SHARMAversusHDFC BANK LIMITED THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is disposed of, with the interim application to be heard by the appellate authority within six weeks.

Summary

Manu Sharma, a former employee, filed a writ petition challenging his dismissal from service and sought an interim application before the bank's appellate authority. The petition was heard by a two‑judge bench of the Bombay High Court. The court directed that the interim application be heard by the appellate authority within six weeks, giving all parties a chance to be heard. It kept all contentions open pending that hearing. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any order on costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner’s dismissal from service was lawful
  • Whether the interim application should be referred to and heard by the appellate authority

Subjects

  • service termination
  • writ petition
  • interim relief
  • appellate authority
  • employment law

Judgment

                                                                                      403_WP_10503_2026.DOC


             Shivgan
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO.10503 OF 2026

                       Manu Sharma S/o Late Lalit Kumar Sharma                       ...Petitioner
                                Versus
                       HDFC Bank Limited
                       thr. its Managing Director and Ors                            ...Respondents
                                                          _________

                       Mr Dipesh Siroya i/by L I M Legit, for the Petitioner.
                       Ms Saba Shaikh i/by Abhay Nevagi & Associates, for Respondent No.1.
                                                          _________


                                                         CORAM:        G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                       DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
                                                         DATE:         24 AUGUST 2026.

                       P.C.

                       1.     Heard Mr Dipesh Siroya, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner

                       and Ms Saba Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1-Bank.

                       2.     The Petitioner has preferred an Appeal along with an Interim Application

                       before Respondent No.3-Appellate Authority, against the order dated 3 rd June

                       2026, by which the Petitioner was dismissed from service.

                       3.     Considering the averments made in the Petition and the reliefs sought, the

                       Respondent No.3 shall hear and decide the Interim Application within a period

                       of 6 weeks from today, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned

                       parties.

                       4.     Keeping all the contentions open in that regard, the Writ Petition stands

                       disposed of. No costs.

                       (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)                                (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

          Digitally
                                                        Page 1 of 1
          signed by
          SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH    SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN   Date:
          2026.08.25
          10:52:06
          +0530


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.