Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sheetal Dass – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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 complaint against the accused for violation of Sections, 16, 18(a)(i), 18 (a)(vi), 18 (B), 18(C), 32 & 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, ‘Drugs Act’) read with Rule 84(E), Rules 69-A, 70-A and 74-B read with paragraph 16.10, and 26 of Schedule M of the Drugs Rules, 1945 punishable under Sections 28(A) and 27(d) of the Drugs Act. It was asserted that the complainant drew the samples of drugs including Vemifol Plus capsules manufactured by M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. at Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, Him
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....
(1) Seizure of drug of sub-standard quality – A person cannot be made liable unless, at material time, he was incharge of and was also responsible to company for conduct of its business – There is no....
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
