Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sheetal Dass – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substandard drug sample prompted complaint against firm and directors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. quashing principles under section 482 crpc per bhajan lal. (Para 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. sufficient allegations; trial court should adjudicate. (Para 7) |
| 4. vicarious liability under section 34 demands charge and responsibility averments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. complaint averments sufficient for directors' summoning. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. petition dismissed; observations limited to disposal. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of complaint No.3 of 2023, titled Union of India versus M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals, summoning order dated 06.09.2025 and consequential proceedings pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P (learned Trial Court). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant, Drugs Inspector, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), Zonal Office, Baddi filed a complai
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....
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 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 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....
Directors liable under Drugs Act Section 34 if complaint specifically avers their involvement in business conduct via emails and records, notwithstanding competent person appointment.
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
