Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945

13 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

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

2019 INSC 139117 December 2019Appeal(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, allowed Reliance to mark

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

2022 INSC 129416 December 2022Appeal(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 inspection, and the investig

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

2008 INSC 71916 May 2008Appeal(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 Tax Act, 1948, and

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusPFIZER LIMITED AND ORS.

2017 INSC 124815 December 2017Disposed 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 that Section 26A is a

S. ATHILAKSHMIversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR

2023 INSC 23715 March 2023Appeal(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 licence, invoking Sect

SUBHASHIS BAKSHI AND ANR.versusWEST BENGAL MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

2003 INSC 8614 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, diploma holders in Community Medical Service, were authorized by a 1980 notification to treat common diseases in rural West Bengal. The State later barred them from issuing prescriptions and medical certificates, requiring counter‑signatures. The diploma holders challenged this restriction, arguing that

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTDversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND . CUSTOMS, DAMAN

2011 INSC 4914 January 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether "physician samples" of patented and proprietary medicines, which are distributed free of cost to doctors and prohibited from sale under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, are liable to central excise duty. It held that excise duty is a tax on manufacture, not on sale, and therefore the stat

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

1998 INSC 3858 October 1998Disposed 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 Vaids/Hakims as practitioner

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

2015 INSC 2877 April 2015Dismissed

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 had issued notices tr

INDIAN SOAPS & TOILETRIES MAKERS ASSOCIATIONversusOZAIR HUSAIN AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 1417 March 2013Appeal(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 Cosmetics Act and Rules do

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 204 January 1996Disposed 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, poor equipment and h

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search