Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd vs National Pharmaceutical Pricing ... on 17 July, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~103
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10060/2025 and CM APPL.41809/2025 (Stay)
M/S SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Shyam Kumar, Ms. Iara Khan and
Ms. Niharieca Mathur, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL PRICING AUTHORITY
.....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 17.07.2025 CM APPL.41810/2025 (exemption from filing clear/typed original of annexures)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10060/2025 and CM APPL.41809/2025 (Stay)
3. The present petition assails a Demand Notice dated 22.04.2025, raised by the respondent upon the petitioner "for recovery of overcharged amount under para 13 of DPCO 1995 read with Section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955- Cloxacillin based formulations".
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the petitioner's liability to pay the overcharged amount (correctly calculated). However, he submits that serious calculation errors have been committed on the part of the respondent, for rectification of which the petitioner has made representation/s to the petitioner.
5. In this regard, specific attention is drawn to a representation dated This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:35:42 07.08.2024 made by the petitioner to the respondent. The said representation inter-alia states as under:
"5. We have also observed that in various annexures to the captioned demand notice dated 08.02.2005, one notification date and some of the notified prices considered for the overcharging calculation were incorrect. The details of the same are given below.
i. In Annexure A-I of the captioned demand notice, while calculating the overcharged amount for the cloxacillin based formulations, the date of notification Is wrongly captured as 30.08.1996 whereas the correct date of notification is 29.08.1996.
ii. Roscilox 500mg capsules (Each capsule contains: Ampicillin Trihydrate IP equivalent to Ampicillin 250mg, Cloxacillin Sodium IP equivalent to Cloxacillin 250mg) Pack of 10's In Strip.
a. As per notification dated 1.03.1996, the notified price of Rs. 38.68 is considered for overcharging calculation. Kindly note that this price of Rs. 38.68 is notified for blister pack, whereas the captioned product is having a Strip Pack and its correct notified price is Rs. 39.20.
b. In the Notification dated 30.08.1996 (the correct notification date is 29.08.1996) the notified price of Rs. 36.SO is taken for overcharging calculation. Kindly note that this price is applicable to the formulation containing Amoxycillin plus Cloxacillin, whereas captioned formulation Roscilox 500mg Capsule is combination of Ampicillin plus Cloxacillin as mentioned above in the point ii.
c. In all subsequent years from 1997 to 2000, the same Incorrect notified price of Rs. 36.50 has been considered, instead of correct notified price of Rs. 39.20.
d. Kindly note that in the calculation pertaining to period August 2000 to July 2003, the authority itself has considered the notified price of Rs. 26.78 which Is price for a Strip pack. This further confirms that the earlier price adopted for calculation was incorrect.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:35:42 iii. Roscilox Injection 500mg ( Each vial contains : Ampicillin Sodium IP equivalent to Ampicillin 250mg, Cloxacillin Sodium IP equivalent to Cloxacillin 250mg ) Pack of Vial with Diluent a. As per notification dated 30.08.1996 (correct notification date is 29.08.1996), notified price of Rs. 9.28 considered for overcharging calculation is for vial pack while factually It Is a dual pack i.e. vial with diluent (Twin Pack) and its notified price is Rs. 11.48.
b. In all subsequent years from 1997 to 2000, the same Incorrect notified price of vial pack has been considered instead of twin pack.
For your ready reference, we enclose herewith copy of Price 11st as on 31- March-2003 submitted to NPPA (Annexure 2) along with copy of Ceiling Price notification dated 19.03.1996, 29.08.1996, 20.07.2000 and
08.12.2000 (Annexure 3)."
6. In response, the respondent expressed inability to consider the said representation of the petitioner on the ostensible basis that the judgment/order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7209/2019 precludes the respondent from doing so. For this purpose, reliance is place on paragraph-7 of the judgment/order of the Supreme Court which reads as under:
"7. Though an attempt was made before us by the learned counsel for the appellant to enlarge the scope of this appeal by questioning the very validity of the demand made under the DPCO, we are not inclined to permit the same. More so, as there is no evidence of the appellant having raised such an issue properly before the Delhi High Court. Similarly, we find that the issue as to whether computation of the demand was erroneous in the context of Paragraph 19 of the DPCO was raised by the appellant only during the course of arguments before the Division Bench of the High Court. Noting this, the Division Bench specifically recorded that such a plea had been made by the appellant before it for the first time and that the writ petition as well as the memorandum of appeal were bereft of any pleadings to that effect. Therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise that plea before us at this stage."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:35:42
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the observations made in paragraph-7 of the aforesaid judgment/order of the Supreme Court was in the light of the fact that in the concerned pleading/s in the context of which the matter was earlier considered, the issue as to the computation error was not addressed. As such, in the previous proceedings, there was no occasion for the Supreme Court and/or the High Court to consider the same. He submits that the same does not obviate or prevent the petitioner from pointing out genuine calculation errors committed by the respondent. It is submitted that it is incumbent on the respondent itself to calculate the amount payable correctly and in accordance with its own notification, without any computational errors. He submits that the respondent has completely misconstrued the judgment/order passed by the Supreme Court.
8. Issue notice.
9. Learned counsel, as aforesaid, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Let the respondent file its reply within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
10. List on 27.08.2025.
11. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, upon the petitioner filing the proof of payment of the principal amount sought to be demanded by the respondent from the petitioner within a period of one week from today, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner till the next date of hearing.
JULY 17, 2025/cl SACHIN DATTA, J This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 21:35:42