9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involves quashing of the summoning order dated 18.12.2003 u/s 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the petitioner, Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., accused No. 5 in the complaint lodged by the respondent. Details of the Judgment: 1. The petitioner, Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., sought quashing of the summoning order dated 18.12.2003, based on the complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 2. A sample of a drug named Erythromycin Estolate Oral Suspension USP was collected on 21.9.2000, and upon analysis, it was found to be not of standard quality. 3. The manufacturing firm disputed the findings and requested re-testing, which again confirmed the substandard quality of the drug. 4. Investigation revealed that the drug was manufactured by M/s. Biodeal Laboratories for M/s. Rhone-Poulene (India) Ltd., which was later amalgamated with Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 5. The Metropolitan Magistrate summoned several accused persons, including Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., based on the complaint. 6. The petitioner argued that it cannot be prosecuted for the offence committed by the transferor company, M/s. Rhone-Poulene (India) Ltd., due to the amalgamation. 7. The State contended that the petitioner is liable as it took over all assets and liabilities of the transferor company, supported by a clause in the scheme of arrangement between the companies. 8. Legal principles were cited, emphasizing the separate legal entity of a company and the consequences of amalgamation on liabilities and prosecutions. 9. The court held that upon amalgamation, the transferor company ceases to exist, and the entity evolved post-amalgamation cannot be prosecuted for offences of the transferor company. 10. Considering the timeline and legal implications of the amalgamation, the court quashed the summoning order dated 18.12.2003 against the petitioner. 11. The court concluded that the petitioner, having come into existence after the date of the alleged offence, cannot be prosecuted for the said offence. This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key legal arguments and decisions made by the court in the case.
|
