Delhi High Court - Orders
Nipro Medical (India) Pvt. Limited vs Union Of India & Anr on 23 March, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:25.03.2021 16:34:33
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3727/2021 & CM APPL.11253/2021
NIPRO MEDICAL (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Samudra Sarangi, Ms. Shruti
Raina and Ms. Moha Paranjpe,
Advocates. (M:8369757825)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Waize Ali Noor GP and Mr. Taha
Yasin, Advocates. (M:9582481101)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 23.03.2021 CM APPL.11254/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 3727/2021 & CM APPL.11253/2021 (stay)
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned Demand Notice dated 15th May, 2019, issued by the Joint Director, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority, Union of India (hereinafter referred as "NPPA"), vide which, a sum of Rs.66,41,30,568/-, has been directed to be deposited by the Petitioner within 30 days, as being the overcharged amount.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that though the said demand was raised in the year 2019, the Petitioner had sent a representation to NPPA on 10th September, 2019, setting out the case that the actual selling price of the Petitioner, in fact, did not increase, rather it was only the Maximum Retail Price (hereinafter, "MRP") which was increased and the same was not W.P.(C) 3727/2021 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:25.03.2021 16:34:33 recovered by the Petitioner. Recently, however, a recovery notice has been received by the Petitioner, dated 22nd February, 2021, directing the Petitioner to deposit the entire money which is alleged to be the overcharged amount, failing which, recovery proceedings have been threatened to be initiated as per section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
4. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner, has placed reliance upon similar orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 1922/2019, titled Terumo Penpol Private Limited v. Union of India and Anr and WP(C) 2233/2021 titled Terumo India Private Limited v. Union of India and Anr.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Kirtiman Singh, ld. counsel for NPPA, submits that in terms of Section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the amounts are liable to be recovered as land revenue.
6. The Petitioner has admitted that the MRP was increased by 10%, and ignorance is pleaded in respect thereof. The justification given by the Petitioner is that the MRP has been artificially increased to cater to the retailers demand in the market and nothing more.
7. This petition and the other petitions which are mentioned hereinabove raise a very important issue qua pricing of drugs. It appears from the record that though the manufacturers are selling the medicinal and other pharmaceutical preparations, including medical devices at low rates to the distributors and retailers, an artificial increase in the MRP is made, to accommodate the demands of retailers. The NPPA ought to take steps to curb such a practice, which is allegedly based on market pressures as admitted by the Petitioner.
8. In any event, the NPPA ought to even look at the actual amount recovered by the Petitioner by the sale of the devices, in terms of the actual W.P.(C) 3727/2021 Page 2 of 3 Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:25.03.2021 16:34:33 selling price and not the artificial MRP. The calculations have already been given by the Petitioner to the NPPA.
9. Accordingly, the NPPA shall look into the representation of the Petitioner, and take a decision in respect thereof after giving a hearing to the Petitioner. Since similar matters, on the question which has been raised in respect of artificial MRP being charged for medicinal and other pharmaceutical devices, are already listed on 7th April, 2021, the NPPA shall place on record an affidavit as to how the same should be curbed so that the consumers get the benefit.
10. Since the Petitioner in the present case admits that a 10% increase was made in the MRP, albeit ignorant of the regulations, the impugned recovery notice shall remain stayed, subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.2 crores with NPPA, within 2 weeks. The said deposit shall be made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner.
11. List on 7th April, 2021 along with W.P.(C) 2233/2021.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J MARCH 23, 2021/dk/Ak W.P.(C) 3727/2021 Page 3 of 3