Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0Activity

Table Of Contents

7) In the light of the said directions issued by the Delhi
8) Aggrieved by the demand so made by the Central
10) Since we will be referring to two Division Bench
11) The case of the learned Additional Solicitor General
12.5.1981. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the
15) The learned counsel submits that the contention of the
16) According to the learned counsel for the Respondent-
17) It is further contended that the Central Government
18) The learned counsel disputes that there was any unjust
19). The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General is in
20). The issue decided by the Division Bench in the impugned
21). The High Court has also rejected the contention of the Central
22). The High Court, after considering the language of para 3 to 17 of
24). The Central Government, exercising its powers under the
25). As of now, we have three notifications. The first one is dated
26). To appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal, it would be
27). The aforesaid notification is issued by the Central Government
28). The impugned notification uses the expression “supersession”
29). In Titaghur’s case, the specific question whether on
30). We now deal with the concept of `review’ that finds a place in
31). In the present case, the Central Government was directed by
33). It is no doubt true that the Murthy Committee was constituted
36) Para 8 speaks of prices of bulk drugs produced through
37) Para 7 of the DPCO, 1979 is in two parts. Sub-para (1) of
38) The Respondent-Company in the month of June, 1990 and
39) The learned senior counsel Shri. Andhyarujina submits
40) It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that a statute must
41). This Court in the case of Phillips India Ltd. v. Labour
44). Now let us see how the High Court has decided this
46) A plain reading of Para 7(2)(a) of the DPCO 1979 shows
47) The Central Government, while issuing the
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Glaxo SC Judgment

Glaxo SC Judgment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by gmistry

More info:

Published by: gmistry on Feb 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/01/2012

pdf

text

original

You're Reading a Free Preview
Pages 6 to 54 are not shown in this preview.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->