Delhi High Court - Orders
Cipla Limited vs National Pharmaceutical Pricing ... on 22 December, 2021
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11324/2021 & CM APPL. 34881/2021 (stay)
CIPLA LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with
Ms.Archana Sahadeva, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL PRICING AUTHORITY &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC with
Mr.Kritagya Kumar Kait, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 22.12.2021
1. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the demand notice dated 12.02.2015 and 15.07.2021 issued by the respondent no.1.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) 4373/2013, it was incumbent upon the respondent to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before raising any final demand, however, the respondents have, without granting any such opportunity to the petitioner or considering its representation dated 19.03.2014 proceeded to raise the impugned demand. Furthermore, while placing reliance on an order dated 19.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C) 13601/2018, he contends that in the present case also, the allegations against the petitioner overlook crucial factor that the manufacturing of the drug in Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:23.12.2021 16:05:12 question, was done prior to the ceiling order passed by the respondent no.1. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner could not be penalised only on the basis of the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the medicines printed on the label prior to the issuance of the notification fixing the ceiling price for the medicine.
3. Issue notice. Mr.Amit Mahajan accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He prays for, and is granted, four weeks' time to file counter affidavit and reply to the application. Rejoinder thereto be filed within two weeks thereafter.
4. In light of the admitted position that the respondent has not granted any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before issuing the impugned demand notice as was directed by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) 4373/2013 as also the petitioner's plea that the MRP was printed on the label before the fixation of the ceiling price by the respondent, it is directed that till the next date, the operation of the impugned demand notices will remain stayed. The petitioner is, however, directed to furnish within four weeks the information sought by the respondents under the impugned notice dated 15.07.2021.
5. List on 24.03.2022.
REKHA PALLI, J DECEMBER 22, 2021 kk/ss Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:23.12.2021 16:05:12