VAIBHAV EAKNATH MALVANKAR v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FRANCO INDIAN PHARMACITICAL PVT LTD
WP/10483/2026 · 2026-08-14
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3253 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3253 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 918-wp-10483-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10483 OF 2026 Vaibhav Eaknath Malvankar … Petitioner versus The Managing Director of Franco Indian Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents …… Mr.Ashutosh Kale (through VC) for the Petitioner. Mr.Yash Vyas (through VC) for Respondent No.1, the Company Mr.O.A.Chandurkar, Addl.GP with Mrs.Madhubala Kajale, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent No.2, the State. …...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 14 AUGUST, 2026 P.C.:
1. The learned Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Kale, is available online. However, he is not interacting with the Court, though he is visible.
2. The learned Advocate representing Respondent No. 1 submits that Respondent No. 1 is a private pharmaceutical company. It is Trupti S. Bamne TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2026.08.17 11:02:18 +0530
2 918-wp-10483-2026.odt not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner’s claim is with regard to the issuance of a relieving letter, an experience certificate, pending salary and full and final settlement of his dues. Apparently, Respondent No. 1 is a private pharmaceutical company. Respondent No. 2 is unnecessarily added as the State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court.
3. The learned Addl.GP submits that Respondent No. 2 has no role to play in this matter and that it is a dispute between a private individual and a private pharmaceutical company.
4. Notwithstanding the above, the learned Advocate for the private pharmaceutical company submits that the company will make an endeavour to look into the grievance of the Petitioner and, if such grievance can be redressed, appropriate steps would be taken.
5. We make it clear that we are not entertaining this Petition and that, we have not expressed any opinion on the claim made by the Petitioner, since this Petition is not maintainable. Trupti S. Bamne
3 918-wp-10483-2026.odt
6. As such, this Petition is disposed off.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Trupti S. Bamne