Eyewitness Consistency is Key in Upholding Murder Convictions," Rules Rajasthan High Court State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case Ignoring Crucial Evidence is an Illegal Approach: P&H High Court in Remanding Ancestral Property Dispute for Fresh Appraisal A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes of Their Advocate: Madras High Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit 20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court Presumption of Innocence Fortified by Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Verdict in Accident Case Absence of Fitness Certificate Invalidates Insurance Claim, Rules MP High Court: Statutory Requirement Can't Be Ignored Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings Reassessment Must Be Based on New Tangible Material: Delhi High Court Quashes IT Proceedings Against Samsung India Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards' Repeated Writ Petitions Unacceptable: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenge Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in Light of Faceless Assessment Scheme Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court Temple's Ancient Land Rights Upheld: Kerala High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claims Expulsion Must Be Exercised in Good Faith — Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Adjudication in Partnership Dispute Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

The intent and purpose are to control prices for the common man: Supreme Court Upholds NPPA’s Authority to Recover Overcharged Drug Prices

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, affirming the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’s (NPPA) demand for recovery of overcharged amounts from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. The apex court’s judgment emphasized the scope and authority of NPPA under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO), and highlighted the importance of maintaining drug prices within the government-notified limits.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. challenged the demand notices issued by NPPA on February 8, 2005, and June 13, 2005, which sought to recover an overcharged principal amount of ₹2,15,62,077 and an interest amount of ₹2,49,46,256, aggregating to ₹4,65,08,333 for the drug Roscilox, a Cloxacillin-based formulation, sold at a price higher than that fixed by the government under the DPCO. The appellant had previously approached the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the writ petition and the subsequent appeal.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Sun Pharmaceutical could be held accountable under Paragraph 13 of the DPCO. Paragraph 13 allows the government to recover amounts overcharged for drugs sold at prices exceeding those fixed by the government.

The Supreme Court observed that the definitions of "dealer," "distributor," and "wholesaler" under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive, implying that entities involved in the drug supply chain could perform overlapping roles. The appellant’s argument that it was merely a "dealer" and not a "distributor" was dismissed as the court found sufficient evidence suggesting that Sun Pharmaceutical played a dual role.

The court noted inconsistencies in Sun Pharmaceutical’s submissions regarding its relationship with Oscar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Delta Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., from which it claimed to have purchased the drug. The lack of a consistent factual foundation and supporting documentation undermined the appellant's position.

The Supreme Court reinforced the DPCO’s objective of controlling drug prices to ensure affordability for the public. It stated that the provisions of the DPCO must be interpreted broadly to fulfill this purpose, rather than narrowly as suggested by the appellant. The appellant’s failure to produce a clear agreement or consistent narrative regarding its role in the drug distribution chain further weakened its case.

Justice Sanjay Kumar remarked, “The intent and purpose [of the DPCO] are to control the prices at which medicinal drug formulations are made available to the common man by holding out the threat of recovery of the higher prices charged for such drug formulations by those involved in their manufacture and marketing.”

By dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the NPPA’s authority to recover overcharged amounts under the DPCO, reinforcing the regulatory framework aimed at ensuring drug price control. This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding drug price regulations and serves as a precedent for similar cases in the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024

M/S. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others

Similar News