Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs M/S. Cipla Ltd. on 20 July, 2016
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, R.K. Agrawal
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.329 OF 2005
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
M/S. CIPLA LTD. & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 4005/2004
SLP(C) No. 15583-15584/2005
SLP(C) No. 15606-15607/2005
T.C.(C) No. 109/2013
T.C.(C) No. 110/2013
T.C.(C) No. 111/2013
T.C.(C) No. 153/2013
T.C.(C) No. 154/2013
T.C.(C) No. 155/2013
T.C.(C) No. 156/2013
T.C.(C) No. 157/2013
T.C.(C) No. 158/2013
T.C.(C) No. 159/2013
T.C.(C) No. 160/2013
T.C.(C) No. 161/2013
T.C.(C) No. 162/2013
T.C.(C) No. 163/2013
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SANJAY KUMAR
Date: 2016.07.22
T.C.(C) No. 164/2013
17:12:25 IST
Reason:
W.P.(C) No. 696/2013
W.P.(C) No. 983/2013
2
SLP(C) No. 15831/2013
SLP(C) No. 22788/2013
SLP(C) No. 34893/2013
W.P.(C) No. 123/2014
W.P.(C) No. 135/2014
W.P.(C) No. 346/2014
SLP(C) No. 19174-19197/2014
O R D E R
T.C.(C) Nos. 109/2013, 110/2013, 111/2013, 153/2013, 154/2013, 155/2013, 156/2013, 157/2013, 158/2013, 159/2013, 160/2013, 161/2013, 162/2013, 163/2013, 164/2013 We have heard learned counsel for the parties in the Transferred Cases.
It appears that these cases were transferred at the instance of the Union of India and there was no objection to the transfer raised by the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is no real necessity in transferring these cases to this Court. The High Court concerned could very well have disposed of these matters particularly since the facts in each case are different as the drug involved is different.
Under the circumstances, we recall the order transferring these cases to this Court and send them back to the concerned High Court for disposal.
3We are also told that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India Vs. CIPLA Ltd. and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 1], a demand notice was sent by the Union of India in terms of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision. Paragraphs 10 and 11 read as follows:
“10. In the result, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise shall stand restored to the file of the High Court and the High Court will have to consider afresh the relevant aspects concerning the criteria laid down in para 22.7.2 of the Drug Policy, 1994 in relation to each drug, having due regard to the observations made in the judgment. The High Court may endeavour to expedite hearing of the writ petitions.
11. The appeals are accordingly allowed without costs. We also consider it just and proper to give liberty to the appellant and the statutory authorities concerned to recover 50% of the “overcharged” amounts pending fresh determination by the High Court. Accordingly, we direct stay of recovery of 50% of the “overcharged” amount subject to the payment of remaining 50% within the period of four weeks from the date of communication of the amount payable by each of the writ petitioners.” We have been informed that some of the parties have complied with this order and have deposited 50% of the “overcharged” amount. If that is so, the High Court may hear and decide their case in accordance with the decision of this Court. Where the demand notice has not been complied with and 50% of the “overcharged” amount has not been deposited, we grant six weeks from today to make the deposit. If the 4 amount is not deposited within this period, then the Union of India may take coercive steps to recover the full demanded amount.
There is already a request in the aforesaid judgment to the High Courts to dispose of the matter expeditiously. We reiterate that request.
The transferred cases are disposed of. The Registry is directed to transmit the records of these cases to the concerned High Court forthwith. W.P.(C) Nos. 696/2013, 983/2013, 123/2014, 135/2014, 346/2014 We grant liberty to learned counsel for the petitioners to withdraw these petitions and approach the appropriate High Court for relief.
We may mention that before entertaining the writ petition, the High Court will take into consideration the contents of paragraphs 10 and 11 of Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India Vs. CIPLA Ltd. and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 1] in terms whereof a demand notice was sent to the petitioners by the Union of India.
We have been informed that some of petitioners have deposited 50% of the “overcharged” amount. If that is so, the High Court may hear and decide their petition in accordance with the decision of this Court. 5
If any petitioner has not deposited 50% of the “overcharged” amount as per the demand notice issued by the Union of India pursuant to the decision of this Court, we direct the petitioners to deposit that amount within six weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited, then the Union of India may take coercive steps to recover the full demanded amount. The writ petitions of the recalcitrant petitioners will be taken up for consideration only after compliance of this order is reported to the concerned High Court.
There is already a request in the aforesaid judgment to the High Courts to dispose of the matter expeditiously. We reiterate that request.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.329 OF 2005, 4005/2004, SLP(C) Nos.15583-15584/2005, 15606-15607/2005, 15831/2013, 22788/2013, 34893/2013, 19174-19197/2014 Arguments heard in part.
List these matters tomorrow (21.07.2016) as part-heard matters.
.............................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) .............................J. (R.K. AGRAWAL) NEW DELHI JULY 20, 2016 6 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).329/2005 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. CIPLA LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for intervention and permission to file affidavit) WITH C.A. No. 4005/2004 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 15583-15584/2005 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 15606-15607/2005 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 109/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 110/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 111/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 153/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 154/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 155/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 156/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 157/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 158/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 159/2013 7 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 160/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 161/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 162/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 163/2013 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 164/2013 (With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 696/2013 (With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 983/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 15831/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22788/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 34893/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 123/2014 (With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 135/2014 (With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 346/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19174-19197/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 20/07/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.8
Ms. Sunita Gautam, Adv.
Ms. Movita Prateek, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makkar, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Jalan, Adv.
Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, AOR Mr. Rahul Kripalani, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soli Cooper, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Suman Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Karan Dev Chopra, Adv.
Mrs Manik Karanjawala, AOR M/s. Karanjawala & Co.
Mr. Iqbal M. Chagla, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Datta, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Verma, Adv.
Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Manu Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. Abhay Anand Jona, Adv.
Mr. Ranjit B. Raut, Adv.
Ms. Bina Gupta, AOR Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Manu Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR 9 Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neelima Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Khare, Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. D.D. Majumdar, Adv.
Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv.
Mr. Abhisar Bairagi, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Agarwal, Adv.
for M/s. Khaitan & Co.
Mr. U.A. Rana, AOR Mrs. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, AOR Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv.
for M/s Gagrat & Co.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soli Cooper, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Suman Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Karan Dev Chopra, Adv.
Mrs Manik Karanjawala, AOR M/s. Karanjawala & Co.
Ms. Asha Jain Madan, AOR Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, AOR Mr. V.K. Verma, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R T.C.(C) Nos. 109/2013, 110/2013, 111/2013, 153/2013, 154/2013, 155/2013, 156/2013, 157/2013, 158/2013, 159/2013, 160/2013, 161/2013, 162/2013, 163/2013, 164/2013 10 The transferred cases are disposed of.
The Registry is directed to transmit the records of these cases to the concerned High Court forthwith.
W.P.(C) Nos. 696/2013, 983/2013, 123/2014, 135/2014, 346/2014 The writ petitions are disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the signed order.
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.329 OF 2005, 4005/2004, SLP(C) Nos.15583-15584/2005, 15606-15607/2005, 15831/2013, 22788/2013, 34893/2013, 19174-19197/2014 Arguments heard in part.
List these matters tomorrow (21.07.2016) as part-heard matters.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)