ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Pfizer Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals and transfer petitions relate to the interpretation of Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Drugs Act”). By the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 1.12.2016, the learned single Judge has held that the mandatory condition precedent for the exercise of the power by the Central Government under Section 26A of the Drugs Act is the prior consultation of the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) set up under Section 5 of the said Act. It must be stated that the learned single Judge differed from judgments of the Karnataka and Madras High Courts in this regard, wherein two other learned single Judges of two other High Courts have held that such consultation with the DTAB is not mandatory before exercise of such power under Section 26A. Since we are concerned only with this narrow question that has been decided by the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, we are not going into any other contentions that have been raised by learn
E. Merck (India) Ltd. v. Union of India
Systopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dr. Prem Gupta
State of Karnataka v Union of India
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Division v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd.
Cellular Operators Association of India v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.