Home  |  News  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us  |  Login
Advertise With Us
Latest Notification
  • banner1
  • banner2
  • banner3
  • banner4
  • banner5
  • banner6
  • banner7
banner11 banner22 banner33 banner44 banner45 banner46 banner47

 Case Digest

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Section 25(4) and 34(1) violation of
Section 25(4) and 34(1) violation of
No averments in substance that the petitioners are ‘in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company’ for day to day business or having over all control over the business of the company which makes them vicariously liable - the writ petition is liable to succeed on the first point—as regards second contention of statutory right of the company and its Director (manufacturer) to apply to the Court for re-testing of the sample from the Central Drugs Laboratory—complaint was filed on 5-7-2002 whereas Government Analyst gave his report on 24-6-1999. On 8-7-1999 the report was received but still no complaint was lodged and thereafter, the same was lodged on 5-7-2002 after expiry of two years and half of the shelf life of drug in February, 2000. But on raising query to the counsel for the respondents, the only reply was given that the procedure was lengthy—it is subject matter of enquiry by the State government as to under what circumstances the complaint was lodged after 2 years and half of the expiry of the shelf life of drug.
M/s. Cadila Health Care Ltd. and others vs. The State of Rajasthan and others, Rajasthan High Court, 2007 Drugs Cases (DC) 222


» Home
» Latest Notification
» New Drugs
» Import of Drugs
» Drug Prices
» Legislations
» Applications Forms
» Quackwatch
» Forms & Fees
» Licence Conditions
» Schedules
» Health, Pharma. Policies & Reports
» Ayurvedic
» Govt. Bodies
» Information Centre
» Directory
» Alert
» Regulatory News
» Research News
» News in Hindi
» Login
» Contact Us

Copyright © DrugsControl.org - Jaipur, INDIA. All Rights Reserved   |   Disclaimer   |   Sitemap

Site last updated: December 30, 1899 at