{"id":138944,"date":"2000-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000"},"modified":"2015-11-24T02:54:07","modified_gmt":"2015-11-23T21:24:07","slug":"hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. &#8230; on 22 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. &#8230; on 22 November, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: U.C. Banerjee, K.G. Balakrishnan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3925 of 1990\n\nPETITIONER:\nHINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LTD. ETC.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPAREMTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nU.C. BANERJEE &amp; K.G. BALAKRISHNAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2000 Supp(5) SCR 19<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>Civil Appeal No. 3925\/1990. The appellant &#8211; M\/s, Hindustan Antibiotics<br \/>\nLtd., a Government of India Undertaking, is in appeal against the impugned<br \/>\njudgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the principal grievance being<br \/>\na direction to the State Government to launch prosecution against the<br \/>\nofficers of the appellant-company for supplying sub-standard I.V. Fluids.<br \/>\nThere exists no manner of doubt that I.V. Fluids being a life saving drug<br \/>\nneed to contain the specification and any foreign element found therein<br \/>\nought to be taken note of rather seriously and as such at the first blush<br \/>\nthis court was of the view that no interference ought to be had, though Mr.<br \/>\nGanguli contended that the High Court has, in fact, transgressed its limits<br \/>\nin the matter of exercise of jurisdiction and it is on this score further<br \/>\nthat the Court was invited to go into the matter in some greater detail.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Ganguli contended that as a matter of fact and admittedly the core<br \/>\nquestion that fell for consideration before the High Court was whether<br \/>\nGovernment possesses absolute discretion to confer any benefit on any one<br \/>\nor should that be regulated by some norms&#8217;. Mr. Ganguli contended that<br \/>\nquestion of sub-standard goods did not fall for consideration before the<br \/>\nHigh Court; neither the High Court was otherwise within its jurisdiction to<br \/>\nexpress any opinion in regard thereto. The opinion so expressed cannot,<br \/>\nthus, Mr. Ganguli contended, but be termed to be obiter. Mr. Ganguli<br \/>\nfurther contended that in any event the direction as contained in the<br \/>\njudgment under appeal, cannot be termed to be otherwise in accordance with<br \/>\nthe norms and principles of law and there is existing a definite violation<br \/>\nof the principles of natural justice since no notice was issued neither any<br \/>\nexplanation was asked for and without any even submission being made in<br \/>\nregard thereto, an order has been passed by the High Court condemning the<br \/>\nsupplies of the government undertaking.\n<\/p>\n<p>From a perusal of the judgment we find some credence to Mr, Ganguli&#8217;s<br \/>\nsubmission since the judgment itself records the admitted set of facts to<br \/>\nthe effect that M\/s. Parenteral Drugs (India) P. Ltd. being the writ<br \/>\npetitioner is regular manufacturer of drugs and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3<br \/>\npurchased drugs, medicines and other items alike materials including<br \/>\nintravenous fluids for consumption in various hospitals in the State. The<br \/>\nState Government, however, in order to afford protection to small scale<br \/>\nindustries in the State issued a Circular dated 9.11.1976 granting 10%<br \/>\nprice preference to small scale industries in the State. The policy of the<br \/>\nGovernment as depicted therein in the matter of purchase of drugs has been<br \/>\nthat the same ought to be purchased from the government undertakings and<br \/>\nthat being the issue and core question before the Court, it was in this<br \/>\nsphere the arbitrariness had been recorded. After the hearing was concluded<br \/>\nthe Bench however, thought it fit to require the production of the files as<br \/>\nregards the award of contract to Hindustan Antibiotics and it was on the<br \/>\nperusal of the files that two letters were discovered in the files<br \/>\nwherefrom it appeared that there was a supply of I.V. Fluids by Hindustan<br \/>\nAntibiotics-appellant herein containing fungus and it was on the basis<br \/>\nthereof the High Court felt that the officials of the government<br \/>\nundertaking ought to be punished and prosecution ought to be launched.<br \/>\nSevere criticism has been levelled against the government officials for<br \/>\nswearing affidavits which are not true to its contents and prosecutions<br \/>\nhave been directed on that score as well.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr, Ganguli in support of the appeal on the basis of the facts above<br \/>\ncontended that law would not countenance such a state of judicial approval<br \/>\nin the country and question of any prosecution without even a show cause<br \/>\nnotice or even without affording an opportunity to file an affidavit in the<br \/>\nmatter, would not arise. Mr. Ganguli further contended that the matter in<br \/>\ndispute is not in issue and the issue before the Court was rather specific<br \/>\nas regards the arbitrary action in the matter of award of contract which<br \/>\nwould otherwise not entail the consequences of initiation of a prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>Incidentally, be it noted that the policy in the matter of award of<br \/>\ncontracts in favour of the government undertakings now stand changed and in<br \/>\nfact the policy has been to recognise the small scale units and on the wake<br \/>\nof the aforesaid question of there being any further arbitrary action would<br \/>\nnot arise. As such neither the State Government nor the appellant is<br \/>\ninclined to proceed with the appeal excepting however for the directions as<br \/>\ncontained in paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 of the Judgment. Paragraphs 41, 42<br \/>\nand 43 so far as relevant for our purposes are set out herein :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;41&#8230;&#8230;..Keeping aside these two aspects for a while, a case for<\/p>\n<p>wilful suppression of material facts, and knowingly swearing a false<br \/>\naffidavit, concealing vital facts, is made out against the respondents 1,<br \/>\n2, 3 and 4. Let notices be issued, calling upon each one of them to show<br \/>\ncause as to why they should not be ordered to be prosecuted for knowingly<br \/>\nswearing false affidavits. Notices be made returnable within three weeks.\n<\/p>\n<p>42. As for drug offences, the State is directed to prosecute the respondent<br \/>\nNo. 4, its agents and\/or servants concerned in accordance with law for<br \/>\nsupplying sub standard I.V. Fluids.\n<\/p>\n<p>43. Uncertainty as to the quality of the product is perhaps more intense in<br \/>\nmedicine than any other commodity and added to it is the consumer&#8217;s-the<br \/>\npatients lack of information. One of the most significant aspects of<br \/>\nmonopolisy health services and medical care unlike other services, are its<br \/>\nexpensive components, controlled by the physician&#8217;s decision making<br \/>\nprocess, where the patient or consumer has no role, yet to have a very high<br \/>\nlevel of trust, in, and acceptance of physician&#8217;s role. It is this trust of<br \/>\nthe patient, which has been breached with impunity by the respondents, who<br \/>\ncreated a monopoly in supply of poor quality drugs at premium rates, that<br \/>\ntoo in the name of public-interest, little realising that human life has no<br \/>\nspare, who has benefited by such conduct, is a matter of investigation, but<br \/>\nit was certainly a case exposing the poor patient, to all sorts or risks<br \/>\nand hazards of medication, as well as the unhygienic conditions in which<br \/>\nthe I.V. Fluids supplied by the H.A.L. were stocked. What is worst is that<br \/>\nall this goes on in the name of public interest&#8217; It is time that the<br \/>\nrespondents, the Directors of Health Services and Medical Education learn a<br \/>\nbit of grammar of public-interest and welfare economics of medical care<br \/>\nrather than in indulging pure mathematics thereof. It calls for a thorough<br \/>\ninvestigation and respondent State is directed to get the matter<br \/>\ninvestigated and proceed against all those involved and concerned in<br \/>\naccordance with law.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Admittedly neither of parties came to court with a case of the nature as<br \/>\nhas been depicted above. While it is true that the observations of the<br \/>\nCourt as the one noticed above, are not as strictly warranted in the facts<br \/>\nbut one need riot fail to appreciate that the law courts exist for the<br \/>\nsociety and in the event of there being any social problem it would be well<br \/>\nwithin the domain of the law court to take such step or steps as they may<br \/>\ndeem fit and appropriate and this is so in spite of the fact that the lis<br \/>\nbetween the parties : does not warrant such a conclusion. But in the matter<br \/>\nin issue by reason of the long lapse of time the whole exercise has become<br \/>\ntotally infructuous : Eleven years have passed and the State however has<br \/>\nnot taken any steps in terms thereof prior to the obtaining the order of<br \/>\nstay from this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the wake of the facts as above and by reason of the expiry of such a<br \/>\nlong lapse of time this appeal has become infructuous. We do however deem<br \/>\nit expedient to record that while it is true that the directions as above,<br \/>\nare totally unwarranted and judicial dynamism has also its limits to<br \/>\nwarrant exercise of jurisdiction to the extent as above, but since the law<br \/>\ncourts are having &amp; social duty, issuance of appropriate directions for an<br \/>\nenquiry would not be wholly unwarranted. The appeal is disposed of<br \/>\naccordingly. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Civil Appeal No. 3926\/1990, This appeal is disposed of in terms of the<br \/>\norder passed in civil appeal No. 3925\/1990. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. &#8230; on 22 November, 2000 Bench: U.C. Banerjee, K.G. Balakrishnan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3925 of 1990 PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LTD. ETC. RESPONDENT: PAREMTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2000 BENCH: U.C. BANERJEE &amp; K.G. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2000 [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. ... on 22 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. ... on 22 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-23T21:24:07+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. &#8230; on 22 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-23T21:24:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1464,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. ... on 22 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-23T21:24:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. &#8230; on 22 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. ... on 22 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. ... on 22 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-23T21:24:07+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. &#8230; on 22 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-23T21:24:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000"},"wordCount":1464,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000","name":"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. ... on 22 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-23T21:24:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-antibiotics-ltd-etc-vs-paremteral-drugs-india-pvt-on-22-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Etc vs Paremteral Drugs (India) Pvt. &#8230; on 22 November, 2000"}]},{"@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\/138944","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=138944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138944\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}