SYSTOPLC LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD. ETC. ETC.versusDR. PREM GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
1993 INSC 30522 September 1993Dismissed
The Central Government, relying on expert opinion, issued a notification on 3 November 1988 under Section 26A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, to prohibit the manufacture and sale of fixed‑dose combinations of corticosteroids with any other drug for internal use, citing public‑health risks in asthma treatment. Sever…
SHAILYAMANYU SINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2025 INSC 99522 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a non‑executive director of Procter & Gamble Hygiene Ltd., was summoned as an accused in a criminal complaint alleging that the company distributed expired drugs to an unlicensed dealer, violating the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The appellant challenged the summoning order under Section 482 of the CrPC,…
M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR.versusCENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS
2024 INSC 104818 December 2024
The appellants, licensed distributors of aromatic tincture of cardamom, were prohibited from selling the product by a District Magistrate’s order and subsequent actions of a drug inspector, who classified it as an "alcohol mixed tincture" and a prohibited article. The appellants challenged these restrictions in the Hig…
MD. SAHABUDDIN & ANR.versusSTATE OF ASSAM
2012 INSC 4545 October 2012Dismissed
The appellants, MD Sahabuddin and others, were arrested for transporting 347 cartons of Phensedyl and 102 cartons of Recodex cough syrups, each containing codeine phosphate in quantities exceeding the limits prescribed under the Central Government notifications. They possessed no valid transport documents and could not…
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS GOVERNMENT OF INDIAversusM/S. CIPLA LTD. AND ORS.
2003 INSC 3601 August 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The Union of India appealed against a Bombay High Court judgment that had quashed the inclusion of seven bulk drugs in the first schedule of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 and set aside price‑fixation notices. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by accepting the petitioners' facts without proper scr…