Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

102 judgments · newest first · showing 1–102

SOHEL SALIM HILABIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, considered multiple bail applications filed by accused persons alleged to have participated in an organized syndicate trafficking codeine‑based cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused procured, transported and distributed the …

SAYYED ARBAJ SAYYED FEROJ ALIAS ARBAJ KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The Bombay High Court heard multiple bail applications filed by accused persons in a case involving the illegal sale and distribution of codeine‑based cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused were part of an organized syndicate that procured, transported and supplied …

JAVED KHAN RAUF KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The Bombay High Court heard multiple bail applications arising from Crime No.279 of 2025 involving the alleged organized trafficking of codeine‑based cough syrup under the NDPS Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The applicants argued that they were not identified by witnesses, …

SOHEL KARIM SAYYED ALIAS SONU MANSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

The Bombay High Court heard several bail applications filed by accused persons alleged to be part of an organised syndicate trafficking codeine‑based cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The prosecution presented evidence of procurement, financial transactions and coordination among the accused, while …

RIZWAN KHAN RASHID KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

The Bombay High Court heard multiple bail applications arising from Crime No.279 of 2025 involving the alleged organised trafficking of codeine‑based cough syrup under the NDPS Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The applicants argued that they were not identified by witnesses, …

SAMEER YUNUS SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The Bombay High Court heard multiple bail applications filed by accused persons in a case involving the organized trafficking of codeine‑based cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused procured, transported and distributed the contraband through a syndicate, with …

A. P. HINDUJAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioner, a managing trustee of Hinduja Hospital Trust, was charged under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for alleged distribution of a spurious ophthalmic drug. The prosecution relied on Section 34 (vicarious liability) and Section 27, treating the trust as a "company" and the petitioner as a …

Mumbai Travel Retail LimitedversusUnion Of India,Through the Secretary

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, operators of duty‑free shops at Mumbai International Airport, were selling nicotine‑pouch products (brand “ZYN” and “FOX”) without a Drugs and Cosmetics Act import licence or registration certificate. The Union of India and various drug‑control and customs officials issued notices …

Flemingo Dutyfree Shop Private LimitedversusUnion Of India

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, operators of duty‑free shops at Mumbai International Airport, were selling nicotine‑pouch products (brand “ZYN” and “FOX”) without a Drugs and Cosmetics Act import licence or registration certificate. The Union of India and various drug‑control and customs officials issued notices …

MOHAMMED FAISAL HANIF SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The applicant, Mohammed Faisal Hanif Shaikh, sought bail in a case under the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for alleged involvement in the sale of codeine phosphate cough syrup. The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the statement of another accused (A1) and banking transactions linking …

Md. kashif khanversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Md. Kashif Khan, a helper at Jeeva Hospital, was implicated in an FIR alleging that he supplied misleading information about a drug licence and concealed that the licence belonged to Abhinav Kumar, violating sections 18(C), 18(a), 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, …

Deosharan Mahto @ Deo Sharan Kumar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

The petitioner, Deosharan Mahto, sought regular bail in a case under section 21(c) of the NDPS Act after police seized 15 bottles of RTX‑SCEN cough syrup, 13 bottles of WINGS ONEREX cough syrup and 120 tablets of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus, all containing codeine. The petitioner argued that the seizure …

as not pressed)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The applicants, partners of two textile firms, were charged under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for alleged electricity theft after meters were seized during a raid. Two FIRs were filed for the same alleged offence, and the applicants sought anticipatory bail and later discharge, …

Aftab AlamversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Aftab Alam was arrested in connection with a case involving alleged contravention of sections 274, 275 and 276 of the Indian Penal Code, section 21(b) of the NDPS Act and sections 27(b)(ii), 28 and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, after cartons of a cough‑syrup were found in a leased vehicle. …

Rajnish Kumar Paswan @ Raj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Petitioner Rajnish Kumar Paswan was arrested on 29‑03‑2025 in connection with a seizure of 120 bottles (12 litres) of codeine‑phosphate and triprolidine syrup, alleged under Sections 21(C), 22(g) and 25 of the NDPS Act. He claimed a clean antecedent, that the allegations were fabricated, and that …

Chintu Kumar @ Suman Kumar @ Chintu Mahto @ SumanversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Chintu Kumar, was arrested in connection with the recovery of 50 bottles of codeine phosphate cough syrup (0.2% concentration) and 1,150 tablets of nitrazepam, and charged under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He pleaded innocence and …

Ranjit RamversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Ranjit Ram, was arrested on 30 July 2025 in connection with a case under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for possession of 118 bottles of codeine‑containing cough syrups. The prosecution alleged that the seized medicines, amounting to 11.8 …

ALIASGAR SAIFUDDIN RAMPURWALAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

BAIL GRANTED

The applicant, Aliasgar Saifuddin Rampurwala, was arrested on 17 November 2023 after police recovered 640 bottles of cough syrup alleged to contain codeine phosphate, leading to charges under the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The applicant’s bail plea before the Special NDPS Judge was …

IBRANversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant Ibran sought bail under Section 483 of the CrPC for a case registered under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act, where 17,760 capsules of a product called Spasmore weighing 9.768 kg were seized from his vehicle. The prosecution argued that the large quantity and lack of a licence …

Md. Intakhab AlamversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Md. Intakhab Alam, was arrested in Purnea for allegedly possessing 4.2 litres of codeine‑containing cough syrup, alleged to violate Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act and Section 27(i)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He contended that the seizure was illegal, citing …

SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

BAIL GRANTED

Petitioner Sanjay Kumar Choudhary sought bail after a complaint was lodged under sections 27b(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, alleging that a non‑licensed medical store was operating in a clinic he ran. The prosecution alleged that a drug inspector discovered the illegal store …

ANIL KHANDELWAL ETC.versusPHOENIX INDIA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 1069Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda issued a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act to recover defaulted loans, but a clerical error inflated the outstanding amount, leading the borrower Phoenix India to allege defamation and file a criminal complaint under Sections 499, 500 and 501 IPC against the Bank's senior …

DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCEversusRAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.

2025 INSC 498Appeal(s) allowed

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigated the illegal possession, manufacture and sale of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, a psychotropic substance listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, leading to charges under Sections 8(c), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act …

SIDDHARTH DALMIA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 351Disposed off

The petitioners, invoking Article 32, sought a court order to stop private hospitals from forcing patients to purchase medicines and consumables exclusively from the hospitals' own pharmacies at inflated prices, alleging exploitation and violation of the right to life under Article 21. They …

RADHIKA AGARWALversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 272

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments to the Customs Act, 1962 and the arrest provisions in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arguing that offences under these statutes remain non‑cognizable and that authorized officers must obtain a magistrate's …

M/S JM LABORATORIES AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 127Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, M/s JM Laboratories and its partners, were summoned by a Judicial Magistrate in Kurnool to appear in a case filed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act alleging manufacture of sub‑standard drugs. They filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the criminal …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEMversusM/S MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 893Dismissed

The case concerned whether pure coconut oil sold in small retail packs (5 ml‑2 L) should be classified as ‘edible oil’ under Heading 1513 of Chapter 15 or as ‘hair oil’ under Heading 3305 of Chapter 33 in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents marketed the oil as …

HEINZ INDIA LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF KERALA

2023 INSC 488Dismissed

Heinz India Ltd. challenged the classification of its product, Nycil Prickly Heat Powder, under state sales tax statutes. The Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court had held the product to be a "medicated talcum powder" and thus a cosmetic, subject to a lower tax rate, rejecting the revenue's …

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS.

2023 INSC 328Case Partly allowed

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. appealed against the Kerala Commercial Taxes Department’s classification of several of its products under the Kerala VAT Act. The appellant claimed that mosquito mats, coils, vaporizers and Mortein insect killers were insecticides (Entry 44(5), HSN 3808) taxable at 4%, …

S. ATHILAKSHMIversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR

2023 INSC 237Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. S. Athilakshmi, a registered medical practitioner and associate professor of dermatology, was inspected by a Drugs Inspector who seized a small quantity of lotions and ointments from her private practice premises. The Inspector alleged that she had "stocked" and sold the drugs without a valid …

HASMUKHLAL D. VORA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2022 INSC 1294Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of a chemical trading company, were accused of contravening the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by purchasing and allegedly repackaging pyridoxal‑5‑phosphate, a bulk food substance, for sale to drug manufacturers. The complaint was filed more than four years after the initial …

LALANKUMAR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2022 INSC 1061Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, directors of Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., were charged under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for manufacturing a sub‑standard drug (Hemfer syrup) and were summoned as accused under sections 16, 18 and 34. They challenged the summons, a criminal revision and a writ petition, …

STATE OF GUJARATversusCADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.

2022 INSC 676Disposed off

The State of Gujarat appealed a High Court judgment that the product Kadiprol, sold in 100‑gram sachets and mixed with poultry feed, should be classified as "poultry feed" under Entry 25 of Schedule I of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, rather than as a "drug and medicine" under Entry 26(1) of …

JACOB PULIYELversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 503Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ petition challenging COVID‑19 vaccine mandates, the disclosure of segregated clinical trial data, the emergency approvals of COVISHIELD and COVAXIN, the adequacy of the adverse‑event‑following‑immunisation (AEFI) system, and the policy of vaccinating …

VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 639Appeal(s) allowed

Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a licensed drug manufacturer, challenged an order of blacklisting issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 8 September 2009, alleging that it had never supplied the disputed veterinary injection under the tender and that the show‑cause notice did not specifically …

UNION OF INDIAversusASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 517Disposed off

The Union of India challenged a High Court order that quashed an FIR registered under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the alleged sale of unlicensed drugs, holding that prosecution for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 must be initiated only by persons named in …

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusM/S LINDE INDIA LTD.

2020 INSC 334Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh assessed tax on M/s Linde India Ltd for its sale of Medical Oxygen IP and Nitrous Oxide IP, treating them as unclassified goods under Schedule V of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which would attract a 12.5%/14.5% rate. Linde argued that the products are …

G H M/S GENENTECH INC. & ORS.versusDRUGS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 1391Appeal(s) allowed

Genentech Inc., Roche Products (India) and F. Hoffmann‑La Roche filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain Reliance Life Sciences from launching its biosimilar product ‘TrastuRel’, alleging improper use of data and passing off. The Single Judge of the High Court, on 25 April 2016, …

STATE OF PUNJABversusRAKESH KUMAR

2018 INSC 1131Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were apprehended with bulk quantities of manufactured narcotic drugs and were convicted under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The High Court, however, suspended their sentences under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding …

STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTORversusMANIMARAN

2018 INSC 1122Leave Granted & Allowed

The respondent, Manimaran, operated a medical shop without a valid drug licence and was charged under Sections 18(c), 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The trial court and the first appellate court convicted him, imposing a one‑year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000, …

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusPFIZER LIMITED AND ORS.

2017 INSC 1248Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Central Government must obtain prior advice from the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) before invoking the power under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to prohibit, restrict or regulate a drug or cosmetic in public interest. The Court held …

RANJAN SINHA & ANR.versusAJAY KUMAR VISHWAKARMA & ORS.

2017 INSC 575Disposed off

The case concerned the applicability of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 to the newly created State of Jharkhand after the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The petitioners challenged a Jharkhand Government notification that sought fresh registration of pharmacists under Section 31 of the Act, arguing that the …

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusNIRMALA DEVI

2017 INSC 325Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against the Himachal High Court’s order that replaced the trial court’s imprisonment sentences for Nirmala Devi with a fine of Rs.30,000. The trial court had convicted her under IPC sections 307 (attempt to murder), 328 (causing hurt by poison) and 392 …

ANIL KUMARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2017 INSC 1256Appeal(s) allowed

Anil Kumar was first convicted under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and a default two‑year term. He was later convicted under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced to one year' rigorous …

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusMARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.

2016 INSC 547Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the imposition of entry tax on Marico Industries' products Mediker and Revive instant starch. The issue was whether Mediker, marketed as an anti‑lice treatment, should be classified as a shampoo under Schedule II Entry 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act, …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABADversusM/S. SARVOTHAM CARE LIMITED

2015 INSC 413Disposed off

The case concerned the classification of Ketoconazole (Nizral) Shampoo for central excise purposes. The assessee argued that the product, containing 2% ketoconazole and marketed for the treatment of dandruff, should be classified under CHS 3003.10 as a pharmaceutical product, attracting 16% duty, …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOAversusM/S. COSME FARMA LABORATORIES LTD.

2015 INSC 287Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether a drug‑manufacturing loan licencee, Cosme Pharma Laboratories Ltd, which contracts job workers to produce its medicaments, should be treated as a "manufacturer" under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thus liable for excise duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise …

UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHERversusSANJEEV V. DESHPANDE

2014 INSC 538Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 applies to psychotropic substances that are listed in the Act’s Schedule but not in Schedule‑I of the NDPS Rules. It held that the prohibition in Section 8 is absolute and covers all such …

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusM/S. SWISS GARNIER LIFE SCIENCES & ORS.

2013 INSC 439Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India challenged the Delhi High Court's order setting aside price‑fixation notifications for Doxofylline formulations, arguing that Doxofylline is a derivative of the scheduled bulk drug Theophylline. The respondents contended that Doxofylline is a new chemical entity not listed in the …

INDIAN SOAPS & TOILETRIES MAKERS ASSOCIATIONversusOZAIR HUSAIN AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 141Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi High Court, in a public‑interest writ, ordered manufacturers of drugs and cosmetics (other than life‑saving drugs) to display symbols indicating whether the product contained vegetarian or non‑vegetarian ingredients. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the Drugs and …

THANA SINGHversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

2013 INSC 56Disposed off

Thana Singh, an undertrial accused of an offence under the NDPS Act, had been detained for over twelve years without trial despite repeated bail refusals. The Supreme Court examined whether such prolonged detention violated the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on …

MUNAGALA YADAMMAversusSTATE OF A.P. & ORS.

2012 INSC 6Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a detention order issued under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 against Munagala Anjaiah, who was alleged to be a bootlegger violating the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. The appellant's wife challenged the order, and the High Court …

GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. & ANRversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2011 INSC 526Dismissed

The Drug Inspector seized a sample of Betnesol tablets manufactured by Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals and sent it to the Government Analyst, who certified on 27 August 1997 that the sample was not of "standard quality". A show‑cause notice was issued on 29 September 1997, to which the company …

REKHAversusSTATE OF T NADU TR.SEC.TO GOVT. & ANR.

2011 INSC 267Appeal(s) allowed

Rekha, the wife of a man accused of selling expired drugs with tampered labels, challenged his preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The High Court dismissed her habeas corpus petition, but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the …

DINESH B. PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2010 INSC 485Dismissed

A criminal complaint was filed against a medicine‑manufacturing company and its directors alleging that the drug was defective due to fungal growth, constituting a breach of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The company and its directors sought to quash the complaint under Section 482 of the Criminal …

D. RAMAKRISHNANversusINTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

2009 INSC 950Dismissed

The appellant (Accused No.2) and his co‑accused were convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 for unauthorised export of alprazolam, lorazepam and nitrazepam, drugs listed in the Schedule of the Act. The appellant contended that the alleged offence should be …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusSHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN LTD.

2009 INSC 488Disposed off

Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. manufactures Dant Manjan Lal, a tooth powder prepared according to Ayurvedic formulas. Earlier it was classified as a medicine and exempt from excise duty, but the Tribunal later held it to be a toilet requisite. After the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 introduced …

STATE OF KERALAversusORISON J FRANCIS & ANR.

2008 INSC 1235Appeal(s) allowed

A complaint under Sections 18(c) and 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 alleged that the accused were manufacturing, selling and storing drugs defined under Section 3(b) without a licence. The accused contended that the seized items were Ayurvedic drugs, governed by Section 3(a), and …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusISHAAN RESEARCH LAB (P) LTD. & ORS.

2008 INSC 1021Dismissed

The Revenue challenged the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal’s finding that 22 products of Ishan Research Lab were Ayurvedic medicines under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff, liable to 10% duty, rather than cosmetics under Chapter 33 at 40% duty. The Court examined whether …

M/S. PONDS INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH H.L. LTD.)versusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW

2008 INSC 719Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mis. Ponds India Ltd., produced Vaseline white petroleum jelly under a licence granted by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. For assessment years 1981‑1989 the Trade Tax Tribunal classified the product as a pharmaceutical preparation (a "drug") under Entry 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade …

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. AND OTHERS

2008 INSC 640Dismissed

The Union of India challenged a Delhi High Court decision that had upheld Ranbaxy Laboratories' claim of exemption from the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 for its bulk drug Pentazocine. The exemption was granted by a government notification dated 29 August 1995 and was said to expire on 31 …

ANJAN1 KUMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2008 INSC 523Case Allowed

The appellant, a public servant, conducted a raid on a medical shop and seized medicines, later filing an FIR against respondent No.2. In retaliation, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging the appellant had committed offences under IPC sections 161, 167, 465, 466, 469 and 471. The District …

THE DRUGS INSPECTOR AND ANR.versusM/S. FIZIKEM LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

2008 INSC 393Case Allowed

The Drugs Inspector seized samples of Ozomen capsules and Ozomen forte, which were found to contain sildenafil citrate, an allopathic drug, in quantities ranging from 33.9 mg to 46.8 mg per capsule. The respondents, who held licences for Ayurvedic and allopathic medicines but not for manufacturing …

M/S. MEDICAMEN BIOTECH LTD. AND ANR.versusRUBINA BOSE, DRUG INSPECTOR

2008 INSC 359Case Allowed

The Drugs Inspector collected a sample of Enalapril Maleate tablets manufactured by M/s. Medicamen Biotech Ltd., divided it into four parts and sent one part to the Government Analyst, whose report declared the drug sub‑standard. The appellant disputed the report, sent two written notices within 28 …

M/S. PUMA AYURVEDIC HERBAL (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR

2006 INSC 145Disposed off

Mis. Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd., a licensed manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicines, challenged the classification of its products as cosmetics by the CEGAT, which attracted a higher excise duty. The Supreme Court applied the well‑settled "twin test"—the common‑parlance test and the …

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.versusSHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN (P) LTD. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 24Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar enacted notifications licensing the use, possession and sale of Ayurvedic medicinal preparations containing alcohol, after amending the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 to include such preparations within the definition of "intoxicant". Manufacturers challenged the constitutional validity …

M/S. MENTHA AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

2004 INSC 342Case Partly allowed

Mentha & Allied Products Ltd manufactured menthol under a licence granted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 31188‑CE, which exempts "bulk drugs" as defined in the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. The Central Excise Collector …

THE STATE OF GOA AND ANR.versusM/S. COLFAX LABORATORIES.LTD. AND ANR.

2003 INSC 576Case Partly allowed

Colfax Laboratories manufactured after‑shave lotions (ASL) under a licence for cosmetics. In 1985 it sought re‑classification of the product as a "medicinal preparation" to obtain a lower excise duty; the Excise Commissioner classified it as medicinal, a decision later challenged. The State issued …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTAversusM/S. SHARMA CHEMICAL WORKS

2003 INSC 267Dismissed

The case concerned the classification of "Banphool Oil" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue argued that the product was a perfumed hair oil (Tariff Item 3305.10) or a toilet preparation, while the assessee contended it was an Ayurvedic medicament (Tariff Item 3003.30). The …

M/S. ALPINE INDUSTRIESversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI.

2003 INSC 11Dismissed

Alpine Industries manufactured a product called "Lip Salve" and supplied it exclusively to the Defence Department for use by military personnel at high altitude. The company claimed that the product was a medicament and should be classified under Heading 30.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, …

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORSversusVATAN MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORE AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2001 INSC 172Disposed off

The Rajasthan Government, by a 1990 notification, declared medicinal and toilet preparations containing more than 20% proof alcohol to be "liquor" under the Rajasthan Excise Act and its 1989 Rules. Several manufacturers of Ayurvedic medicines challenged the notification and the Rules as beyond the …

CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD.versusCADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

2001 INSC 173Disposed off

Cadila Health Care Ltd. (appellant) and Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (respondent) are successor companies of the former Cadila Group, each manufacturing drugs for cerebral malaria under the brand names 'Falcigo' and 'Falcitab' respectively. The appellant sought an injunction on the ground that the …

AMERY PHARMACEUTICALS AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2001 INSC 148Dismissed

A drug inspector sampled a formulation purchased from a retailer and, after analysis by a Government Analyst, found it to be misbranded, adulterated and spurious. The manufacturer, Amery Pharmaceuticals, sold the drug through a distributor and was charged under Sections 27(b), (c) and (d) of the …

CIPLA LTD.versusMAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ORS.

2001 INSC 100

Cipla Ltd employed cleaning staff through a contractor and routinely terminated them after eleven months to avoid granting permanent status. The Maharashtra General Kamgar Union filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices …

DR. MUKHTIAR CHAND AND ORS. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1998 INSC 385Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 2(ee)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which defines "registered medical practitioner", exceeded the legislative competence of the Central Government under the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and whether state notifications declaring …

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSANJAY KUMAR AND ORS.

1998 INSC 213Case Allowed

The State of Rajasthan filed a complaint under sections 27(d) and 27(b)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 alleging that sub‑standard drugs were being sold. Samples were collected on 29‑Feb‑1988, but the Government Analyst’s report confirming the drugs were not of standard quality was received …

STATE OF HARYANAversusBRIJ LAL MITTAL AND ORS.

1998 INSC 211Dismissed

The State of Haryana filed a complaint alleging that two batches of sodium chloride injections purchased by a district inspector were adulterated, as reported by the Government Analyst under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The manufacturers, Mis Mittal Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd., were served with the …

STATE OF ORISSAversusJANMEJOY DINDA

1998 INSC 108Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa prosecuted Janmejoy Dinda, who ran a nursing home, for stocking medicinal drugs without a valid licence and for failing to disclose the source of those drugs. The trial court convicted him under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, imposing imprisonment …

LAXMIKANTversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 411Dismissed

The appellant, a manufacturer of Ayurvedic toothpaste containing 4% tobacco, challenged a 1992 government notification that prohibited the manufacture and sale of any Ayurvedic drugs licensed as tooth‑pastes or tooth‑powders containing tobacco. The notification was issued under Section 33(E) of the …

PRATAP PHARMA PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 347Disposed off

The petitioners, manufacturers of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs, challenged the amendment to Section 3(h) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, arguing that it arbitrarily prohibited the manufacture of drugs administered by the parenteral route and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the …

PRATAP PHARMA PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 348Disposed off

Pratap Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and others filed writ petitions under Article 32 challenging the amendment of Section 3(h) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (as amended by Act 68 of 1982), alleging it was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners contended …

STATE OF GOA AND OTHERSversusLEUKOPLAST (INDIA) LTD. ETC.

1997 INSC 202Case Allowed

Leukoplast (India) Ltd. manufactured plasters, dressings and bandages under a licence from the Drug Controller and paid Central and Goa local sales tax at the rates applicable before certain notifications exempted "drugs and medicines". The company claimed a refund, asserting its products fell …

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 20Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ under Article 32 filed by Common Cause seeking remedial measures for the serious deficiencies in India’s blood‑banking system. A 1990 consultancy report highlighted widespread unlicensed banks, reliance on professional donors, inadequate testing, …

DR. (MISS) ALETTA GRACE BELLversusDR. (MISS) S. TIRKEY AND ANR.

1995 INSC 703Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. (Miss) Alette Grace Bell, the Medical Superintendent of Duncan Hospital in Bihar, was served a notice by the Drug Controller requiring a licence to manufacture and distribute an IV solution for patients, invoking Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The High Court held that the …

B.P.L. PHARMACEUTICALS LTDversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

1995 INSC 338Appeal(s) allowed

B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. manufactured a Selenium Sulfide Lotion (branded Selsun) containing 2.5% selenium sulfide, used for treating seborrhoeic dermatitis and tinea versicolor. The product was certified as a drug by the FDA, labelled with warnings, and marketed through chemists on prescription. …

RAGHU SEEDS AND FARMS AND OTHERS ETC.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

1993 INSC 351

The petitioners challenged the validity of the Central Government's notification dated 24 February 1983 declaring seeds of food‑crops, fruits and vegetables as essential commodities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the consequent Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 which required licences for …

VINCENT PANIKURLANGARAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1987 INSC 66Disposed off

Vincent Panikurlangara, an advocate and General Secretary of a public‑interest law service society, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a total ban on the import, manufacture, sale and distribution of certain drugs that had been recommended for prohibition by the Drugs Consultative …

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusPRATAP CHAND & ORS.

1981 INSC 63Dismissed

The State of Karnataka prosecuted three respondents – two partners and their firm – for allegedly providing a fictitious address of the supplier of a drug, violating sections 18(a)(ii), 18(c) and 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The prosecution relied on an inspector’s report that the …

RAJASTHAN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORY, BANGALORE AND TWO OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

1981 INSC 13Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the conviction of Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, its partner and its manager for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, including sale of unlicensed and sub‑standard drugs, failure to disclose source, and contravention of a prohibitory order. The High …