Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
VADSP Pharmaceuticals – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the complaint filed against them for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 16, 18 (a) (i), 18(a) (vi) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 titled Union of India through Drugs Inspector (C.D.S.C.O.) Sub Zone Baddi vs. M/s VADSP Pharmaceuticals and others pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, Baddi, H.P. (learned Trial Court). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner in which they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 16, 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules 1945. It was asserted that the complainant drew a sample of Lycoyat manufactured by M/s Unison Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. 124, E.P.I.P. Industrial Area Phase-1, Jharmajri, Baddi, H.P. for test and analysis on 24.11.2017 in the presence of Mr. Premnath, Ana
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific averments in the complaint to establish that individuals were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at t....
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires clear allegations of a director's responsibility for the company's conduct; mere directorship is insufficient.
Vicarious liability under Drugs Act Section 34 requires specific averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for day-to-day business and supervision; mere directorship insufficient, bu....
Directors cannot be held liable for a company's criminal acts without specific allegations of their involvement; mere directorship is insufficient for establishing vicarious liability.
Liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires clear averments in the complaint regarding the accused's managerial responsibility; mere directorship is insufficient without evidence of control ....
Vicarious liability under Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific complaint averments that director/MD in charge and responsible for company business conduct; mere designation insuffi....
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 arises if the person was in charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company at the time of the offence, and the company mu....
Directors of a company not involved in drug manufacturing cannot be held liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act absent specific evidence of their responsibility for the conduct of business.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
