VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2020-11-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 06,2020

Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL INFRA ENGINEERING PVT LTD VS. SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-1042] [REFERRED TO]
K&J PROJECTS VS. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-72] [REFERRED TO]
NAMAN SEVA SAMITI VS. CENTRAL WOOL DEVELOPMENT BOARD [LAWS(MPH)-2022-3-160] [REFERRED TO]
HEALTH CARE MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD. VS. M.P. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES CORP. LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
SARR FREIGHTS CORPORATION VS. GENERAL MANAGER AP REGION [LAWS(APH)-2021-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
PRATHAM NATIONAL SECURITY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2021-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
GUPTA FREIGHT CARRIER VS. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI BUILDERS VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-89] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE BHANDARI PLASTIC PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP NATHU CHAUDHARI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANAND RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR AGRAWAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-3-111] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant is aggrieved by indefinite order of blacklisting dated 08.09.2009. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, only on the ground of delay, as having been preferred ten years later.
(3.)Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that it holds a valid licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Drugs Act') in Form 28 (Rule 76) issued by the Drugs Control Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh. M/s Palak Pharmaceuticals Private Limited had obtained supplies from the appellant in the year 2007, and in turn had supplied it to the respondent under a tender notice dated 04.10.2006. The label 'XYO701' on the injection was an inadvertent human error. The brand name of the medicine was correctly mentioned as "OXY-125". The composition of the medicine was also correctly mentioned as "Oxytetracycline IP Vet 125 mg". The generic word "Hcl" was only missing on the label, and it was written as "OXYTETRACYCLINE INJ. I.P. VET" in place of "OXYTETRACYCLINE HCL INJ. I.P. VET". It was therefore a case of bonafide inadvertent printing error which resulted in misbranding. The product was not substandard or spurious veterinary medicine.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.