SC pulls up Ranbaxy for delayed raising of refund issue

Image
Press Trust Of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 20 2013 | 12:03 AM IST

The Supreme Court has admonished drug major Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd for not raising on the relevant occasion the issue of refunding Rs 1 crore penalty the government had imposed on it for allegedly overcharging drug prices.

A Bench headed by Justice V S Sirpurkar, while hearing the Centre’s plea, flayed Ranbaxy for not raising the issue when the matter was decided in May last year in the apex court.

“Why did you keep quiet at the time when the final orders were passed? You failed to raise the issue and now you want refund ... You were sleeping then or you were in coma?” Justice Sirpurkar said.

However, the Court permitted the company to move an application seeking the refund.

The Ranbaxy counsel sought refund of Rs 1 crore with interest more than a year after the Supreme Court upheld the firm’s position in May 2008.

The Supreme Court in January this year dismissed the review plea filed by the Centre challenging its decision of May 12 last year, wherein it had held that exemption from the Drug Prices (Control) Order shall relate to drugs just manufactured in the period of exemption and these need not be sold also during the interval.

The Supreme Court Bench in its May 2008 verdict observed that a manufacturer is not in a position to know when a drug will be sold.

“(The firm’s) control over the drug would end when it is dispatched to the wholesaler ... The manufacturer cannot supervise or oversee as to how others would be dealing with its product ...” it said.

The Delhi High Court in May 2006 had asked the firm to pay the penalty of Rs one crore and had directed that the money would either be refunded or paid, with interest in each case, depending on the verdict.

The High Court upheld Ranbaxy’s position, holding that the words used in the exemption notification are not “manufactured and sold” but only “manufactured”.

The government’s position was that Ranbaxy, which manufactured bulk drug Pentazocine four months prior to the expiry of the exemption period, was required to apply for price fixation and it was obliged to follow an existing notified price for bulk drug or a ceiling price for formulation on the expiry of the exemption.

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Aug 24 2009 | 1:33 AM IST

Next Story