Bharat Serums & Vaccines Limited vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1875

YASHWANT VARMA
Bharat Serums & Vaccines Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rohan Shah, Advocate., for the Petitioner; Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC & Ms. Srirupa Nag, Advocate., for the Respondents; Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Krishna Sarma, Mr. Jayakrishnan K.R, Mr. Navnit Kumar & Ms. Archita Phookun, Advs., for the Petitioner in CM Appls. 29370/2020, 9966/2022; Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Danish Khan, Adv., for the Respondents No. 1 to 3 in CM Appls. 29370/2020, 9966/2022

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document primarily discusses regulatory provisions related to pharmaceutical pricing, including the interpretation and enforcement of Paragraph 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013, and related statutory and policy frameworks. It focuses on issues such as overcharging, price revision rights, penalties, and the scope of monitoring versus fixing prices for scheduled and non-scheduled formulations. The document does not mention or address issues related to copyright law, intellectual property rights, or any copyright-related protections or violations. Therefore, it does not talk about copyright.

Table of Content
1. timeline of overcharging allegations against bharat serums and bard. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. disputes regarding the interpretation of paragraph 20 in relation to overcharging. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's observations on the application of paragraph 20 and its implications. (Para 7 , 12 , 18)
4. arguments related to the enforcement of paragraph 20 and rights of manufacturers. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. conclusions reached by the court following the examination of legal principles. (Para 97 , 98)

JUDGMENT

A. INTRODUCTION

1. These three writ petitions which revolve around Para 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 20131 assail demand notices issued by the respondent National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority holding the petitioners guilty of overcharging and thus liable to deposit the overcharged amount together with interest thereon. Bharat Serums the petitioner in W.P.(C) 7946/2018 and 8190/2018 challenges the demand notices dated 26 June 2018 and 05 July 2018. The two demand notices relate to non-scheduled formulations named Histoglob and U-Tryp. Bard the petitioner in W.P.(C) 9090/2020 has challenged identical demand notices dated 07 November 2019 and 22 October 2020 in respec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Del) 1875

YASHWANT VARMABharat Serums & Vaccines Limited – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (22)

YASHWANT VARMA
Bharat Serums & Vaccines Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent