Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 926

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
Cipla Limited – Appellant
Versus
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority – Respondent
W.P.(C) 208/2026 | W.P.(C) 209/2026 | W.P.(C) 211/2026 | W.P.(C) 212/2026 | W.P.(C) 213/2026 | W.P.(C) 214/2026 | W.P.(C) 215/2026 | W.P.(C) 227/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Archana Sahadeva
For the Respondents: Nishant Gautam CGSC, Vardhman Kaushik, Kavya Shukla, Vinay Kaushik

The court emphasizes the necessity of procedural fairness, specifically the requirement to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing before issuing demand notices for overcharged amounts when the factual basis regarding manufacturing dates relative to price notifications is contested.

Headnote:The petitioner filed several writ petitions challenging demand notices issued by the competent pricing authority, contending that the manufacturing of the subject drugs occurred prior to the issuance of the relevant ceiling price notifications. The court observed that the impugned decisions were reached without providing the petitioners an adequate opportunity of hearing despite prior preliminary notices. The court, seeking clarification on procedural fairness, directed the respondents to take instructions on why the decision should not be reconsidered. The central issue pertains to whether the pharmaceutical authority can issue recovery notices based on subsequent price ceiling notifications without considering the date of manufacture and whether such decisions violate principles of natural justice. The ratio decidendi focuses on the necessity of affording an opportunity of hearing before the issuance of recovery demands where the statutory applicability regarding the date of manufacture is contested. The court, declining any interim order at this stage, adjourned the matter to await instructions from the respondents regarding the reconsideration of the impugned decisions.

Table of Content
1. overview of the dispute regarding the timing of drug manufacture versus price notification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's mandate to ensure procedural fairness and the requirement for an opportunity of hearing prior to adverse findings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)

O R D E R

1. The grievance raised by the petitioner in all the writ petitions is that the manufacturing of the drug was prior to issuance of ceiling price notification by National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (‘NPPA’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has presented following brief note of facts to explain the aforesaid position:

“BRIEF NOTE ON FACTS”

Item No.	WP (C) No.	Impugned Batch No. & date of manufacturing by the Petitioner	Ceiling Price Notification issued by NPPA	Form V issued by Petitioner on	Date of alleged purchase by the NPPA	Product Name
62	208/2026	SA22815; Oct. 2022	SO No. 194(E); dt. 11.01.2023	12.01.2023 [PDF 230]	25.05.2023	Forcan 150mg
63	209/2026	AFC22029; June 2022	SO No. 87(E); dt. 06.01.2023	09.01.2023 [PDF 88]	20.10.2023	Cipmox CV
64	211/2026	D2031; April 2022	SO No. 1579(E); dt. 31.03.2023 (w.e.f. 01.04.2023)	02.04.2023 [PDF 112]	21.07.2023	Terbicip
65	212/2026	KO20300; May 2022	SO No. 87(E); dt. 06.01.2023	09.01.2023 [PDF 242]	25.05.2023	Novamox CV 625mg
66	213/2026	23S2GCA145; Feb. 2023	SO No. 1579(E); dt. 31.03.2023 (w.e.f. 01.04.2023)	02.04.2023 [PDF 121]	19.07.2023	Itranox
67	214/2026	P110458; May 2021	SO No. 87(E); dt. 06.01.2023	09.01.2023 [PDF 89]	22.08.2023	Fungicip
68	215/2026	SA13292; Nov. 2021	SO No. 87(E); dt. 06.01.2023	09.01.2023 [PDF 84]	23.05.2023	Forcan 200mg
69	227/2026	G1832022; Oct. 2022	SO No. 194(E); dt. 11.01.2023	12.01.2023 [PDF 103]	25.07.2023	Vitafol 5mg

3. As per the respondent, the amount mentioned in the demand notice against each of the petitioner is as under:

Sr. No.	Name of Drug	Demand Notice dated	Amt. mentioned in the Demand Notice.
1.	Itranox 200’ Capsules, Ts, Each hard gelatine capsule contains Itraconazole 200mg	26.08.2025	Rs.1,01,05,428
2	"Terbicip" Cream, 10gm, Containing Terbinafine Hydrochloride 1%w/w	05.08.2025	Rs.52,71,156/-
3	Forcan-150" tablets, 1's, each uncoated tablet contains Fluconazole 150mg	25.07.2025	Rs.51,73,715/-
4	VITAFOL" Tablets, 30's, each uncoated tablet contains Folic Acid 5mg	11.08.2025	Rs.29,98,312/-
5	Fungicip-200" Tablet, 1's, each uncoated tablet contains Fluconazole 200mg	12.08.2025	Rs.20,58,029/-
6	Forcan-200" tablets, 4's, each uncoated tablet contains Fluconazole 200mg	11.08.2025	Rs.10,32,606/-
7.	Cipmox CV-625" Tablets, 10's, each film coated tablet contains Amoxycillin 500mg and Clavulanic acid 125mg	04.08.2025	Rs.5,16,335/-
8.	Novamox CV 625mg" Tablets, 10's, each film coated tablet contains Amoxycillin 500mg and Clavulanic acid 125mg	01.08.2025	Rs.4,70,079/-

4. During the course of hearing, the respondent submits that under almost similar circumstances, vide order dated 15.10.2025, the Court has entertained the writ petition and had directed that no precipitative steps shall be taken against the petitioner therein, subject to depositing with the respondent the overcharged amount, as involved therein.

5. In view thereof, the Court is of the tentative opinion that a similar order should be passed in these writ petitions as well.

6. The petitioners, however, rely on some other orders that they claim to be identical. Be that as it may, the Court is not inclined to pass any interim order today, and instead calls upon learned counsel for the respondents to take instructions as to why the impugned decision should not be directed to be reconsidered by the said authority after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing.

7. It be noted that the preliminary notice was issued to the petitioners; however, before taking the impugned decision, the petitioners were not called upon to explain their action.

8. To this Mr. Nishant Gautam, learned CGSC, who is assisted by Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, learned counsel for responde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document