{"id":120965,"date":"2009-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009"},"modified":"2014-07-13T17:59:48","modified_gmt":"2014-07-13T12:29:48","slug":"ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India … vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India … vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 14\" DAY OF OCTOBER \n\nBEFORE:\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE fhi\u00a7AAbND B*\"I'RA}~'_?.EE\u00a7D'Y , O' I is \n\nWRIT PETITION No.26: 18   \nc\/w WRIT FETITION NQ._9463'OF.2006(GM?RES')r.4  \n\n' L;c\u00a7\u00a73,\u20ac'\\5@\u00bb\u00a7.{'.\\\\8&Q\u00a7\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nM\/s. Astra Zeneca Pharma Indi'a ii,.i1i*I\u00bb1i,tedi,' I   _\n\nA company incorporated tj1.nde_1*'--the..    C' \n\nCompanies Act,..E?956,_ hailing   \n\nRegistered Office a,t}'Post,B.oX,No.2483, \n\nOffice: Bellairy Road,\"i%\u20acebb--al-,,,   \" _   '\nBang-al.ore\u00bb;56G~.O24*reprcsented byiiits \n\nCornparty Secretary  .'i{,Guha.\"\"\"\"' ...PETITIONER\n\n'cg; ,gt;iata,;;s_ _  \n\n J  ~ , ,[jn,ion,:Ve.fi'fn.dia,\n\n By it3_Secre'tary, Ministry of\nV \"iChertti5c_al\u00a7$ and Fertilizers,\n De1\u00a7a1T:'ft_ent of Chemicals and\nPetrochemicals, 3;\" Floor,\n\n\" I   Wing, Eattpath Bhavan,\n 4\"New Delhi.\n\n   The Under Secretary,\n\n(DPEA),\n\nGovernment of India,\n\nMinistry of Chetnicais and Fertilizers,\nDepartment of Chemicals and\nPetrochemicals, 3\"\" Floor,\n\n8\n\n\n\nper pack was fixed. On 5\"' November, 1984, the first\n\nrespondent revised the maximum sale price of bu1;k._:'d.i*iug at<\/pre>\n
Rs.828.25 By its price fixation order dated<\/p>\n
respondent revised the retail price of *Ibii.profen”it’ab1ets.\u00a56C_Q, rrzg.<\/p>\n
(ten) to Rs.10.()3 per pack. Being   <\/p>\n
order dated 21.1.1985, the pvetitiioi-ier  revievv<\/p>\n
application under Para. i?.7._A’of  Order)
\n1979, (hereinafterpreferifed.1979″, for brevity).\n<\/p>\n
The said review:    for consideration as\non the date of  '9 it 9\n\n 13; 'order, dated 13.2.1985, the first\n\n<\/pre>\n
respondent”fi};ed_aV1eader  in respect of Ibuprofen tab1ets–400<\/p>\n
 ,_ mg,V’~i.at: ‘per___pack of ten and in respect of 200 mg. at<\/p>\n
  price of Ibuprofen suspension of 100 ml., 50<\/p>\n
mi. paiiia  per pack was fixed. Aggrieved by this<\/p>\n
igorder o*fd1A3.2.1985, the petitioner had also filed a review, which<\/p>\n
  V”i:aga_i_nri’emained pending. By its notification dated 25.9.1985, the<\/p>\n
 respondent revised the maximum sale price of Ibuprofen at<\/p>\n
9 Rs.845.60 per kg. And by an order dated 29.7.1986, the leader<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
price of tablets of 400 mg. was revised at Rs.8.70 per pack and<\/p>\n
that of 20 mg. at Rs.4.49 per pack.\n<\/p>\n
5. Thereafter, by a letter dated  <\/p>\n
respondent cailed upon the petitioner-ito’ ‘fur,n.is1_h  the 1 9<\/p>\n
procurement and utilisation of the ilbt_;1i1<_vdrug8ilvbuprofegp"ffheu<\/p>\n
petitioner accordingly had fu1*nis1ieti. the  period<\/p>\n
from 1.11.1981 to 30.6l'19,_86  cover of1'Hits"llette1* dated
\n20.1.1987. Despite the furnished, the
\nrespondent again    furnish fresh details
\nby its letter   time, the Drugs (Price
\nControl)lOrder,l  referred to as the "DPCO 1987"<\/p>\n
for brevity)  into force and the DPCO 1979 stood<\/p>\n
 T&hereai'Hte1r,1 by a letter dated 6.11.1992, details for<\/p>\n
iproc'urei1:ei'*it,il_of,"the bulk drug was sought from the petitioner for<\/p>\n
1 it _ the  i1'.d1.19'79 to 25.8.1987. This would encompass the<\/p>\n
1 ll"11:<erfttici'e_.period during which the DPCO 1979 was in force. The<\/p>\n
   pttittditet by its letter dated 16.12.1992, stated that details had<\/p>\n
 already been submitted and further, that commercial production<\/p>\n
of the formulations having commenced only on 1.11.1981, the<\/p>\n
petitioner did not have any data for any period prior thereto.<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Despite this, the respondent continued to issue reminder letters<\/p>\n
seeking information in respect of the procurement for\u00e9the-_per_iod<\/p>\n
from April l979 to August l979. Tlie petitioner_wasic’o–rtipel’led <\/p>\n
to reply and reiterate its stand.   ._<\/p>\n
6. It is now the petitioner’s conteintionilithat _.forlthe.first<\/p>\n
time, after the repeal of the  as a_lso.’l98l7, their<\/p>\n
respondent by its letter dva-tend 27..3;”l’ll9_l5,illl1EtS raisedilsaltieinand for
\nRs. 5,37,5i6\/– in respect    on the<\/p>\n
basis that since\u00a7..lhe_.petitionei* ..l’1ad\u00ab.failed’_it_offurnish the requisite<\/p>\n
informatioinlf ‘they:yfirstffrespioncient had no alternative, but to work
\nout the liability czfy from whatever data became<\/p>\n
available. to the first respo-ndent and the petitioner was called upon<\/p>\n
  to dep’osit”‘itiieliisaid amount.\n<\/p>\n
 71;’:”‘-Tricia’petitioner denied any such liability, but the<\/p>\n
 _ respo’ri–den_t’by.i\u00abi”its letter dated 5.l.l996, revised the liability of the<\/p>\n
39.44″-Vpetitionerfrom Rs.5,37,5l6\/~ to Rs.2~\u00a7l,52,383 \/–. The petitioner,<\/p>\n
 dated 14.2.1996, requested for a personal hearing. The<\/p>\n
i”‘l.rnatter was thereafter referred to the Drugs Prices Liability Review<\/p>\n
Committee (hereinafter referred to  he ‘DPLRC’ for brevity).<\/p>\n
8. The petitioner filed written submissions before the
\nCommittee. The petitioner particularly pleaded that records<\/p>\n
being sought to be produced for a period between ‘years<\/p>\n
was unreasonable as the petitioner did not retain rer;ordsffor more i <\/p>\n
than 8 years for purposes of audit anti; the _sa’1’r;e”\u00abwere ide’stroyed_ or<\/p>\n
discarded by the petitioner etc.,g  DPVLRC  <\/p>\n
take any decision between May and July }There was
\nno response from the C’O.fii’iml[i_\u20ac\u20ac2.l_ __to the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
written submissionsp B3\/”le\u00bbtter datildp  the petitioner<\/p>\n
was inforrried’–  submitted its report to the<\/p>\n
Government’ “Old ~i5i:2o04i. y:”riai;ianiiis*ying the liability of the<\/p>\n
petition-3.1′ uunder..theipro\\iis.ioi1s of DPCO 1979 at Rs. 1,74,86,519\/’-<\/p>\n
 iand the Goyernmeint had accepted the report and the petitioner<\/p>\n
 deposit the amount. The petitioner replied<\/p>\n
V . that  its ikiiowledge, similar demands which were the subject<\/p>\n
ii”iiin’rr1attier_uofit:hal1enge in writ proceedings before the Bombay High<\/p>\n
=iTCourtii and that there were orders therein restraining the<\/p>\n
“.Governmei1t from pursuing or implementing similar notices and<\/p>\n
since the present demand was squarely covered by the said<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
orders, the petitioner requested the respondents to abide by those<\/p>\n
orders.\n<\/p>\n
9. The respondents thereafter. forwarded <\/p>\n
Report sixteen months after it was sub,n1itted_–“by’ .C0n’im1ttt:\u00e9”. <\/p>\n
and thirteen months after its letter of  plover<\/p>\n
of its letter dated 5.9.2005. Furthe’i;..V_it was stated V-,th’a.t”the interim it<\/p>\n
orders passed by the Bonibay Higii loiirt-\u00bbwould’ not  applicable
\nto the petitioner and called.t.’upe-nil’t’he__peti.ti.on_er to deposit the<\/p>\n
amount. it i_s in tiii.s’p1’bacl;ground tha’t’th.eV_fi.rjstiof these petitions is<\/p>\n
 Insofar.as:_jthe”s_ec\u00bbond writ petition is concerned, the<\/p>\n
petitioner had”n1anufact.ured: formulations based on the bulk drug<\/p>\n
0  l’d.i.i_ringitheiiperiod the DPCO 1979 was in force.<\/p>\n
  was procured either indigenously or through<\/p>\n
import was used in the production and sale of formulations made<\/p>\n
9″4491’s.:frem4_.the”‘bulk drug from 2.11.1981. The petitioner discontinued<\/p>\n
—  theprodtiction of the formulations, with effect from 24.8.1984. it<\/p>\n
is stated that the respondent did not fix or notify any price in<\/p>\n
respect of the bulk drug Refampicin prior to 27.10.1986. It is<\/p>\n
hence, contended that from 1.11.1979, when DPCO 1979 came<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
into effect, till 27.10.1986, there was no notification as regards<\/p>\n
the price of the bulk drug Refampicin. It is only on 27..Viii.li.’1.986,<\/p>\n
that the first respondent fixed the maxirrauin sale _<\/p>\n
at Rs.3,098\/– per kg.   _<\/p>\n
l 1. it is not only the petitioner:*but1’_theiieritire’ ind.us:tr*3r.i’ivVas<\/p>\n
unaware whether the price that  inxthc “of the V<\/p>\n
formulations made from psing,r-the:”p_l;.:;il’k.,.drugiiiRe.fan’ipicin as a<\/p>\n
notional price. The petitioner7contends..that assuming such<\/p>\n
notional price was*t.al’_<en into:   the formulation
\nprices, of the ft):-n1j.ilatiions"haSled.hulk drug, the petitioner
\nand the:'i,;1dus*tr_\\,iv%;ra:2,"the dark. It is the petitioner's Case<\/p>\n
that no sucii.__4pricei"had. been. determined even notionally. The<\/p>\n
petitioiner__ii'contends.,b_y__uotification dated 24.8.1981, the first<\/p>\n
resp'o–ndentVhadii'fixed the leader prices in respect of certain<\/p>\n
foririuliatioinsiimsed on the bulk drug Refampicin. These were in<\/p>\n
iii"~~..'_i_Wexercise  power under DPCO 1979 . It is pointed out that at the<\/p>\n
A  pi"time_  price fixation as on 248.198 E. there was no disclosure of<\/p>\n
  ..fi3{ati0n of the bulk drug price, even though the petitioner was<\/p>\n
entitled to market its Refampicin formulations at the leader prices<\/p>\n
fixed by the respondent. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
sold the formulations at prices much lower than the leader prices.
\nAnneXure–C to the writ petition is :1 detailed statement showing
\nthe prices at which the forrnulations were sold and rnarl\u00e9eted by<\/p>\n
the petitioner — company.\n<\/p>\n
12. By a notification dated 16.23983, _El’i6’lti\u00a7tdi3’1–i.:p1’iQ\u20acSi_:bf. <\/p>\n
Refarnpicin formulations were revised.’downwards.’-. 9″A.g’ai’1i..&tl:iere<\/p>\n
was no intimation or disclosu1’e’b_f”fixation of the’ibLil\u00bbk_”dr11g–‘price’.. . 9′<\/p>\n
Once again, the prices charged bpy.—-thev.pe’titioner” –w.ere..rlower than
\nthe reduced prices of the iiforr.ntiiati3o\u00a7is  by the notification.<\/p>\n
There was yet another doiwnwaifd rey~\u00e9isi0n’ir;t’ter1ns of notification<\/p>\n
dated 13.9. 19839.9 ggagain-__thei’e was no intimation of fixation<\/p>\n
of the bulk 9d.r__u”g vpriceisi  prices of the formulations charged<\/p>\n
 ‘by the…petitioneri ‘w’ere___lower than the reduced prices. This was<\/p>\n
 fo1low.edvb’y* ‘another downward revision by notification dated<\/p>\n
.l.3i.Z?..l’984_w’ith the same result. In that, there was no fixation of<\/p>\n
 .  “the bulk. drug price and the petitioners prices were lower than the<\/p>\n
   prices. By a letter dated 6.9.1984, the first respondent<\/p>\n
9   called upon the petitioner to furnish details of procurement of the<\/p>\n
9 bulk drug Refatnpicin. By reply dated 28.11.3984, the petitioner<\/p>\n
furnished the details. The petitioner also furnished details to<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
show that, compared to the prices allowed by the Government,<\/p>\n
the petitioner had actually incurred a net loss of Rs.30.43  a.nd<\/p>\n
other aspects such as, the hike in cost of <\/p>\n
conversion charges, and that the \u00a3iC%Ll&lMimC()St o.f”p1*ocureIne’n,t W83″. <\/p>\n
far in excess of the prices fixed by   iiflzati’<\/p>\n
called profits ought not be viewed_in..,isolation. .     i V\n<\/p>\n
13. The first respondent,  with the<\/p>\n
petitioner and sought for”  which were duly<\/p>\n
furnished by a_ letter   claimed that the<\/p>\n
petitionei”‘hatt ftirfhished;hatch}w\u00a7’se utilisation of Refarnpicin
\nfrom 1979 to Vl98(}ff.and_iii”w,as calted upon to do so before<\/p>\n
30.9.1986, lama, petitioneriicomplietl. It is on 27.10.1986, that<\/p>\n
 iithe  iespondent  first time fixed the bulk drug price of<\/p>\n
if  per kg. With effect from 26.8.1987, the<\/p>\n
 , nPC”o 19.137 -tttme into force and DP(‘.’.() 1979 stood repealed.<\/p>\n
 9 ,__4l4i.””.It was provided undet” the DPCO .1987 that<\/p>\n
  he-twithstanding the repeal of opco 1979, anything done or any<\/p>\n
 action taken insofar as it is not consistent with the provisions of<\/p>\n
DPCO 1987, be deemed to have been done or taken under the<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
corresponding provisions of D?C(} 1987. The petitioner<\/p>\n
contends that DPCO 1987, did not contain any’…pci=o_lvi_sion<\/p>\n
corresponding to Para 7 or Para 17 of DPCO 1979.. <\/p>\n
the general saving under Para 32 of I\u00a7ie…DPCO_–‘1l987;_’:vth’e’re’_’wasa”\u00bb <\/p>\n
limited saving contained in Para–14 w”l1ich’_’coki1ferred the<\/p>\n
first respondent to recover dues’ accifiied u’nd__er   9<\/p>\n
15. The petitioner contendes–thiit_as~..on the da.tee.cif repeal of
\nthe DPCO 1979, name1yl72l5e_.’8.l9\u00e97:_:v  had no amount<\/p>\n
accrued as enVis.age:d’:~iind\u00a7elr  DPCO 1987, the<\/p>\n
first respoiidentiifyhad”if:-noti’e~\\{e’:2 issiiieciiito the petitioner a notice<\/p>\n
c1aimingl’any=arnount’:_a1._1eged1y.~due or payable by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
There_–was no ._arnount’-determined as due or payabie under<\/p>\n
 .ll’E’a,ragrapli:’7:(12)_.ofltheiiDPCO 1979. However, the first<\/p>\n
1 dated 25.9.1987, raised a demand for<\/p>\n
1 ii _ Rs.25<i~,_l.O;j58\u00bb.96, in respect of the bulk drug Refarnpicin as the<\/p>\n
11 luaniount determined as intended _proi'%_t made by the petitioner on<\/p>\n
—   of the difference between the price of Refampicin allowed<\/p>\n
 in the formulations and the actuai procurement price during the<\/p>\n
period 14.1979 to 31.3.1984 and claimed that the amount was<\/p>\n
recoverable under the DPCO 1979 mad with the saving clause of<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
DPCO 1987. The petitioner, in response, pointed out that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had in fact suffered a loss by selling <\/p>\n
formulation at prices lower than the notified pric_es__ __tli-ere<\/p>\n
could not be said to have any uniritended ,’o_enefitcoiiferredfon the 1′<\/p>\n
petitioner. There was no response to its ahfove letter to <\/p>\n
effect on 19.10.1987 for over t.wio..y’e~srs. A\n<\/p>\n
16. The petitioner  aga.i1n_-upon byfaletter dated
\n19.5.1990 to deposit the arnount 1 The petitioner had<\/p>\n
replied raising  ..1Afte’r—-“further exchange of<\/p>\n
correspoiideineeiiiiiya   on 15.2.1993 and the
\npetitioner7had– Sil.’\u00a313tl’VIe1.”1’i’,’.,:\u20ac,”(1’iii1r”El.__I:i’iit’i1(43F” details. The first respondent<\/p>\n
constituted a D”1′.1_g Price ‘and.’ Liabilities Review Committee. The<\/p>\n
 fconirriitteeoaliied upon the petitioner to make its representation on<\/p>\n
1l\u00a7’7._i.l’0_._  1.1995, the petitioner made its submissions<\/p>\n
9 if _ before tl1e..’:c()’rnrr1ittee. The next hearing was fixed on 27.5.i996.<\/p>\n
1*ilfifhesopetiriioner had submitted its written submissions raising<\/p>\n
–.i.’.-several preliminary issues. On the basis of recommendations said<\/p>\n
‘Vito have been made by the committee, the petitioner was issued<\/p>\n
with a dernarid I30t1C\u20ac calling upon the petitioner to pay<\/p>\n
Rs.l9,50,l()’7.50 together with interesgif Rs.31,57,44_l.56. The<\/p>\n
petitioner acknowledged the notice and called upon the respondent
\nto furnish the copy of the report of the committee, which was<\/p>\n
furnished to the petitioner on 4.4.1997.\n<\/p>\n
17. The petitioner thereafter had cha1ienged.–At’fie <\/p>\n
writ proceedings before this court in  533\/  fFi;eiideirna’n.d<\/p>\n
was quashed by order dated <\/p>\n
remitted for a fresh considerationofiiiie respondern: Ana} a iapse<\/p>\n
of four years and six months, th(5’fpetV\u00e9t’io_ner’was caliedxupon for a
\npersona} hearing. The pet_itior1erv”_h2{d  submissions and
\nthereafter, by  2iI1:;1:_~i..’\u00a2;'(1\u00e9i”‘ \u20acdated:_4′ i”.’2(}06, the petitioner’s
\nsubmiss’ions_ –were,’negate’d_:”and the demand of Rs.51,07,549\/–<\/p>\n
under Parafgraphv  Paragraph l7(l.)(a) (i) of the<\/p>\n
 p_  read”-wvitiiFaragraph E4 of DPCO 1987 read with<\/p>\n
 Paragraph\u00e9’ii2~o:f’ DPCO 1995. It is this order which is under<\/p>\n
challenge in’Vtijfie5second of the writ petitions.<\/p>\n
 ‘jShri Udaya Hoila, Senior Advocate appearing on behaif<\/p>\n
“=of.t_h’ef_Counsei for the petitioner contends that in the first of these<\/p>\n
_peiiitions the impugned demand is iiiegai inasmuch as with the<\/p>\n
 repeai of the DPCO 1979 — the respondents Iacked the power and<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to raise a demand with n=:fe.rence to the same. With<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
the repeal of DPCO 1979 with etfect from 26.8.1987 -~ the
\nrestricted saving provision contained in the DPCO 1987, namely
\nparagraph 14 couid not be pressed into service.<\/p>\n
The said provision reads as foifowszw<\/p>\n
” (1) Power to recover dues act:rued”u~n,de,r the.VI)rugs’*(hPriC’e<\/p>\n
Control) Order, 1979, into the Drug Prices Eouahlisation’ )_<\/p>\n
Notwithstanding anything contain’ed<–.._in this. O1'der,*the.i 'Groyez3nmentd*<\/p>\n
may, by notice require the manufacture1jV,9importer idijstrihiutor, as the
\ncase may be, to deposit the"aniounti"whi9ch  accrued' on account of
\nthe actions under the D1ugs99"(Pr;ices'  1979, on or before
\nthe commencement vof this.Gi'dei",  i7'rices Equalisation<\/p>\n
Account and the ?_trtati}:,1facturer, iziiporter',_or 'Ciistrihutor, as the case may<\/p>\n
be, shaiiivdepositihtiieysaid.arnount__it!_to_' the said account within such time
\nas the Government *may9,_speci.fy"in the said notice."<\/p>\n
VWQI9.  It is \u00a21ear,,__that the respondents couid exercise power<\/p>\n
only" -if,  had accrued, was determined and had been<\/p>\n
detnaitded.9u't'id_er:'the DPCO 1979, on or before the commencement<\/p>\n
 DPC'Qhi.987. Admittediy, no amount had accrued prior to the<\/p>\n
   DPCO I979. The demand was actuaiiy raised for the<\/p>\n
 time in 1995, by which time even the DPCO 1987 stood<\/p>\n
99 repealed.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
i7<\/p>\n
20. The DPLRC has completely overlooked this
\npreliminary jurisdictional issue  weil  other contentions on<\/p>\n
merits and was not justified in imposing interest on the.de..rnand<\/p>\n
made for a period of 8 years during which time the 1naVtte’r’tt\u00e9\u00a7ias <\/p>\n
pending consideration before the coinnriittee.  i–l.\u00a3?\u00a70li:a
\nwould submit that the petition be allowed_, it  I I V l\n<\/p>\n
21.. Insofar as the second  petitions   Shri
\nHolla contends that if a it iniirespect of a
\nformulation — a rnan.ufactL}rer.:i.s::~enltii%;%91  formulation at<\/p>\n
or beiow” d’tliea..Vieade:rfV  manufacturer sells the
\nformL1iationsia.t or–bVelo_w_iiti:e:ii\u00a3e.atier price it would be ilfogicai for<\/p>\n
the Central Gouyernineht to pass an order under Section 7(2)(a) of<\/p>\n
 .DPCOli9’79ito deposit any amount into the Drug Price<\/p>\n
E\u20ac3ua3’isativon–i A.ccto1.1-rat.\n<\/p>\n
“22. ,__t1t is3″contended that when the Central Government has<\/p>\n
 indicatetd or fixed the price of the bulk drug, the Centrai<\/p>\n
.’_1Goviernrnent cannot thereafter pass any order for deposit of<\/p>\n
“-4,Via’rn.ount into a drug price equaiisation account when the<\/p>\n
manufacturer sells the formulation at c beiow the leader price.<\/p>\n
 _ pDPcoi_i9s7.\n<\/p>\n
E8<\/p>\n
It is further contended that when the Central Government<\/p>\n
exercises the power under paragraph 7(2)(b) read with<\/p>\n
l3(6)(a) of DPCO 1979 and fixed the price of rornji11a\u00abtj_(;tisf <\/p>\n
the manufacturer has sold the formulatiyons at or’be1(;xj;z’vthe’wpI’ciceso ” . <\/p>\n
fixed the Central Government ceases to have’: power  directlithe<\/p>\n
petitioners to deposit into the Price Eq11alivs_ati.on”‘Account’VV<\/p>\n
under paragraph 7(2)(a) of the
\nit is contended thatilvvith :i’ep:e2t:l.i\u00a7>.fi r)1>Co 1979 with
\neffect from  m;\u00bb,;–\u00a2:  in the Central<\/p>\n
Government to imitigate’acti4ori.fl’o.r’tl1e determination of any liability<\/p>\n
under paragraph’  I979. It is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
Drug Price l’Equalisat_iol11.l.Account i.tsc1_f has been abolished under<\/p>\n
  ..Fti’IIll’1C’31l’;\u00ab,llli:?1_t it is only dues which have accrued under<\/p>\n
DPCOlil979.l–V’ii’;3.t}:’> the DPE Account. on account of action taken<\/p>\n
‘lea,.,.,.’49l7itnder  1979 on or before the commencement of DPCO<\/p>\n
   determined m- that cotzid be recovered by the<\/p>\n
   Government.\n<\/p>\n
23. it is contended that the Government was required to<\/p>\n
take into account the d.iffere.nce bejgeen the leader price of the<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
formulation fixed by the Governmeni and the price at which the
\npetitioner  sold those formulations. especially when theflentral.<\/p>\n
Government has never indicated to the petitioner, <\/p>\n
the bulk drug taken into account while fixing  <\/p>\n
the formulation.\n<\/p>\n
It is contended that the price.__fixationunder.’the; <\/p>\n
\nis to ensure the availability of  prices to the
\nconsumers. The petitioner.  objective into
\nconsideration    prices below the
\nleader price;     the benefit to the
\nconsumer.  this fact while making the
\ndemand. V i i ii<\/p>\n
 Seri.ior”__Atlvocate places reliance on the following<\/p>\n
 au;th’oritie_S;~tolsiupport the contentions; that a tax becomes due not<\/p>\n
because of a7c_ha’rging Section but because it is ascertained by the<\/p>\n
 i’._assessi1ig:a;?ithority — State 0_f’Raja.s*rfzrm vs. Ghasilal, AIR 1965 SC<\/p>\n
The word “due” means that which is determined under a<\/p>\n
‘V statute and not otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
Similarly, “accrued” means that there has been an<\/p>\n
adjudication and a demand. — CLmr0dz’an General cgbfle\ufb01fvat-nee<\/p>\n
Property, New Delhi and (m”mrs vs. <\/p>\n
AIR 1957 Punjab 58 and Mal2.en.dc1r I’_rqs;zd Rqrzzmiii he:E\u00a3ec’:ioit”   <\/p>\n
Officer and others, AIR 1976 Orissa <\/p>\n
A tax becomes due when “e.n_i\u00e9tles”the State ‘recover the ‘<\/p>\n
same. There necessarily  deterrninatlion or an
\nassessment before it can  due. Harshad
\nSharztilal Mehtq.  5 SC C I .\n<\/p>\n
Shri   the above petitions be<\/p>\n
allo wedlas prayeci  i * ll<\/p>\n
25. ‘Per contra;Alptii-{Counsel for the respondent contends<\/p>\n
 insofar as the firs-tiof these petitions are concerned — that the<\/p>\n
 liability  the DPE Accounz under paragraph 7(2) read<\/p>\n
wiithlparalgrlaphlE’i7tI)(a)(i) of the DPCO 1979 accruesnas and when<\/p>\n
“._lh\u20ac proeurenient price of the bulk drug concerned falls below the<\/p>\n
 price. The liability is linked with occurrence of the event<\/p>\n
 and not with the process of determination of the quantum of<\/p>\n
ii liability. Therefore, it ought to be kept in View that it is not the<\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
date on which notice is issued to discliaifge the liability — on which<\/p>\n
the liability arises.\n<\/p>\n
Further, that even after the repeal of DPCO l_.9_:79p_<\/p>\n
14 of opco 1987 read with parag1′:1phM3′() and<\/p>\n
DPCO i995 read with paragraph 27 ll’1.\u00a21’\u20ac(_lf the<\/p>\n
powers of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
26. Insofar as the s,eeorid of”th.e_”wr’i-I,_petitions. isvveoncerned,
\nit is contended that during   was in force<\/p>\n
the petitioner wa’s, i_nani.:ifac\u00a7tt:.i:ii1g..inarketing formulations<\/p>\n
based on   maximum sale price of<\/p>\n
.indigenoi,1sly inani:faL\u00a7tluiie(iiV_bu’lk’drug Rifampicin was notified for<\/p>\n
the first tinie.._tin.delr’  3(1) of DPCO 1979 as per order<\/p>\n
 i1u98oi.i “Pri.O.I_to this the bulk drug was being imported<\/p>\n
iiitothep  —and the price of formulations based on the bulk<\/p>\n
drtigwas  from time to time based on the import price of the<\/p>\n
  ‘ ‘bulk drugiiifampicin.\n<\/p>\n
V   order to determine the liability of the petitioner,<\/p>\n
particulars had been called for which, according to the<\/p>\n
” respondents, was not furnished properly. However, the<\/p>\n
@<\/p>\n
petitioner’s iiabiiity has been fastened on the basis of information
\nfurnished.\n<\/p>\n
27. it is contended that the buik drug Rifampicinvi~si_iania.nti–<\/p>\n
tubercular drug and the forrnuiations based on_.A”ihe  <\/p>\n
specified in category In of the third schedule. ct itjpeio ii97i9.  <\/p>\n
terms of paragraph i3 of DPCO <\/p>\n
empowered to fix the retail price of such formtiia.t.iens”taeeordinglyV<\/p>\n
the leader price of the oniiitheiibuik. drug
\nRifampiein was fixed  of DPCO 1979
\nvide order    ii:–other years.\n<\/p>\n
   the primary question that<\/p>\n
arises for coirtsidevrationi.niit’he’ first of these petitions is whether the<\/p>\n
“i”\u00ab–.respvo_jn:ients were jiust-i-fied in raising; demands in terms of sub-<\/p>\n
 t_)artiigt”&o:t1\u00ab:_7(:5,i}’ r\u00a7:f”t.he opco 1979 etc notices dated 27.3.1995 and<\/p>\n
thei’eafter._ . i i at 2<\/p>\n
Tihere is no dispute that DPCC) I979 stood repealed with<\/p>\n
it   26.8.1987. However in the Eight of paragraph .14 of<\/p>\n
i    DPCO 1987 Whether it cottid be said that the respondent couid<\/p>\n
 yet raise the demands and whether the DPLRC was justified in<\/p>\n
endorsing the aiieged iiabiiity of thegetitioner.<\/p>\n
tn.)
\nDJ<\/p>\n
29. To answer the above question we may usefully refer to the
\nletter of paragraph 7 of the DPCU E979, which is extracted<\/p>\n
hereunder for ready reference.\n<\/p>\n
” 7. ?ower to fix retention price and pooled _p1i’ce.ifor”th:e isalenof it<\/p>\n
bulk drugs specified in First Schedule Ol’iSCCO:\u00a5:lti Sci1h_pedul*e__i1’1dVi<\/p>\n
manufactured as well as imported ~\u00bb~ (1) Whereaibu1l{‘drug.VspeCi:lied’ in<\/p>\n
the First Schedule or the Second Schedule ‘-r_nanufactured.i’<\/p>\n
indigenously and is also imported, the”(\u00a5_o\\*ei’n111en’t  having regard
\nto the sale prices prevai_ling fromdt-imeyntoy time “in respect of
\nindigenously manufactured bulk idrugvs, _.yl:s’~yv””.t)rcler, fix with such<\/p>\n
adjustments as the 4Gox;_ernrr1enitV’1i.1a:y consider V-necessary;<\/p>\n
(a)   V\ufb02rnanufacturers, importers, or<\/p>\n
(b) a pooledltprice fo1=:tl”ie::s’ale or such bulk drugs.
\n(2) ~W.here V-an Vrrianuifacttirer of l’o1’mulations utilises in his
\niriorrntileattions a11yi’lju’i’kv drug, either from his own production or
\n‘ ujiarocurled   from any other source, the price of such bulk drug
\n 2 “t\u00a7emg;”l5v.z\u00a2r’~i,th\u00a7i11 the price allowed to him in the price of his
\nt’o.rmL;_lation’si the Government may require such manufacture:\n<\/p>\n
(a) “to__AEleposit into the Drug Prices Equalisation Account referred
\nA  to in paragraph 17 oil’ the 6XC\u20ac:.\\’s’ amount to be deterrniried by
\n the Government; or<\/p>\n
 (b) to sell the formulations at such prices as may be fixed by the<\/p>\n
3 ‘m<\/p>\n
Governrnent.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
30. From a plain reading ofthc above it is ciear that there is<\/p>\n
an obligation on the petitioner to deposit into the <\/p>\n
Equalisation Account the excess amount detertriined:”b’y’r :ti’:et’\u00bb.<\/p>\n
Government. There is no dispuEe~”‘t’ha-t\u00ab.th’ere_t.waS_ no..i’.VSti’c.h 9<\/p>\n
determination before the repealppof   ‘In<\/p>\n
event it cannot be said that tithe”\u00bbrespot1d\u00a7nt9i.’.=could” invoke’<\/p>\n
paragraph 14 of the DPCiQV~._19E\u00a77.”‘toi terms of
\nparagraph 7 of   It is to be also
\nnoted that it is _1’ec’ord, had “aliowed”\n<\/p>\n
various    fixing the price of
\nforrnulations  drug Hence there is no merit<\/p>\n
in the ciefer1c_e”souightito “bei1;raised by the respondents and hence<\/p>\n
 V. A_ the petition oughtto. s__L__1_eceed .\n<\/p>\n
  as the second of the petitions is concerned the<\/p>\n
qaestion t_ha’te~”ari:ses for consideration is W whether, in the absence<\/p>\n
“-of the firs_t’i~respondent having fixed or notified at price in respect of<\/p>\n
   drug Rifampicin tilt 27.10.1986, it was open for the first<\/p>\n
reapondent to claim the difference between the price of<\/p>\n
Rifampicin allowed in the formulations and the import or<\/p>\n
procurement price during the period E\/1.1979 to 31.3.1984, under<\/p>\n
paragraph 7(2) of the DPCO 1979. It is admitted by the<\/p>\n
respondent that the price. of indigenotisly manufactured,bal.l{d_rug<\/p>\n
Rifampicin was notified for the first time <\/p>\n
However, it is sought to be contended_that__the im\ufb02portipricey the’ <\/p>\n
buik drug fixed from time to time in   the  <\/p>\n
27.10.1986 could be taken into ‘account,  fixinpgl t.he’:~–1ea’derl price” 1<\/p>\n
of the formulations madevfrom the”s’a–%.d’bltil’I<_.drug 'As wit is an anti-
\ntubercular drug and falls ulndei.' lc'ategior.y5l-Ilia.of_w__Schedule HI and<\/p>\n
therefore the Go~vet:np:r}tent;=__is em~powe'i'eld- ..tVo__fj"ilx the leader price in<\/p>\n
terms of paral;r3Frap:li':1::\u00b0ih(lti') of 979.<\/p>\n
32.lWThe ._resp<)ndex1t that there was no need for<\/p>\n
notifying: the pi'ocurei*nen't price of the bulk drug allowed in fixing<\/p>\n
1 1 theV1eade\u00a7v"priee__of forrhalations plepared out of the bulk drug as it<\/p>\n
was\u00a5'_'oeiit';gj"'–i.ntported prior to 1986, is not a contention that is<\/p>\n
V _ supported._':by'v"any legal provision. No such presumption arises<\/p>\n
readling of the. Scheme of the DPCO 1979. The respondent<\/p>\n
setfhiag to read paragraph 13(6) of the DPCO 1979 in isolation to<\/p>\n
l"gtrace the power of the Government to fix the leader price of a<\/p>\n
formulation falling under Category 111 of Schedule 111 does not<\/p>\n
meet the requirement of the price 0 ' he bulk drug being notified —<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
even if imported. No such presumption that the price of the bulk<\/p>\n
drug ought to be taken as the price at which it is imp0rtedVhe_”taa_1(en<\/p>\n
into account in the petitioner proceeding to find i_t:?__nt%v’1if&–llege_ti<\/p>\n
liability.   p<\/p>\n
33. In the absence of any detei’\u00abmin_atit\u00a7n bf <\/p>\n
the petitioner in terms of the ._E>979f”prior.Vtd.:it\u00e9’~-:re’p’eal \u00ab~\u00bb~ no”<\/p>\n
liability can be fastenedzpn the””‘peVtitit5’r;.er 0ni’ti’1e*Strength of
\nparagraph E4 of the D?CO’–1#9′:.8’7   ii  <\/p>\n
Accordinglguthe  tn he allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Thein\/i*iAt:iiipetiltifi\ufb01is jinjwpizi\u00e9riitis\/2005 and WR9463\/2006
\nare herehy \u00ab a’l.i’0y\\Vred,_ . i    “-~   l <\/p>\n
j.Annexnures:v’f’Si’V,.’Az5i; CC and DD in WP.261l8\/2005 are<\/p>\n
\ufb02’.V.i’VhCf\u00a2\\EyV.q\ufb01\u00a7\u00a7b\u00e9d1,,  lllll <\/p>\n
 M and HH in WP 9463\/2006 are hereby<\/p>\n
 _ quasil*ied_..,,’:. ‘ <\/p>\n
 ” :.__Orld’ered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
VEV<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India … vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009 Author: Anand Byrareddy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14″ DAY OF OCTOBER BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE fhi\u00a7AAbND B*”I’RA}~’_?.EE\u00a7D’Y , O’ I is WRIT PETITION No.26: 18 c\/w WRIT FETITION NQ._9463’OF.2006(GM?RES’)r.4 ‘ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India ... vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India ... vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-13T12:29:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India … vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-13T12:29:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4232,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India ... vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-13T12:29:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India … vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India ... vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India ... vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-13T12:29:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India … vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-13T12:29:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009"},"wordCount":4232,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009","name":"M\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India ... vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-13T12:29:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-astra-zeneca-pharma-india-vs-union-of-india-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Astra Zeneca Pharma India … vs Union Of India on 14 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120965","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120965"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120965\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}