Disposed

Institute of Cellular Therapies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/8426/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions after issuing directions regarding the processing of a Form 44 application under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by the respondents and safeguards for ongoing patient treatments.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for Form 44 application process, record access, non-disruption of prior treatments, and a four-week grace period post-decision with liberty to revive the petition if aggrieved.

Institute of Cellular Therapies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~18 & 19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment pronounced on: 13 February 2018

¶4

- W.P.(C) 8426/2014 & CM Nos.19466/2014, 18841/2015, 55065507/2018

¶5

INSTITUTE OF CELLULAR THERAPIES PVT. LTD. & ORS

¶6

..... Petitioners Through Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Syed Burhanur Rahman, Mr. Ishwar Mohanty and Mr. Prateek Singh Choudhary, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Rishikant Singh, Adv. for R-1 & 2 Ms. Rajeshwari H, Adv. for R-3 & 4

¶7

AND

¶8

W.P.(C) 4004/2017 & CM No.17608/2017 INSTITUTE OF CELLULAR THERAPIES PVT. LTD. & ANR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Syed Burhanur Rahman, Mr. Ishwar Mohanty and Mr. Prateek Singh Choudhary, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Rishikant Singh, Adv. for R-1 & 2

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

W.P. (C) 8426/2014 & conn.

¶11

Ms. Rajeshwari H, Adv. for R-3 & 4

¶12

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶13

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

¶14

After some arguments, both Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, who appears for the petitioners and Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC, who appears for respondents no.1 and 2, on instructions, submit that these writ petitions can be disposed of based on the following directions:

¶15

(i) The petitioners will file their application in Form No.44 as prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the extant rules and regulations. The application so filed will be processed in accordance with law by respondent no.2 as expeditiously as possible.

¶16

(ii) Respondent no.2 will be entitled to verify as to whether there are patients on the rolls of the petitioners whose treatment commenced prior to 23.7.2014. The petitioners will give in this behalf full access to the records maintained by them and, if necessary, also allow the experts deputed by respondent no. 2 to interview the patients as well.

¶17

(iii) In case it is found that petitioners have patients on their rolls, who have been receiving dendritic cell therapy, albeit, prior to 23.7.2014, their treatment shall not be disrupted by respondent no.2.

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

W.P. (C) 8426/2014 & conn.

¶20

(iii)(a) In case the decision taken by respondent no.2 on the petitioners’ application filed in Form 44 is against their interest, the treatment of patients will not be disrupted for a period of four weeks. This period will commence from the date, when, the decision taken by respondent No. 2 is communicated to the petitioners.

¶21

(iv) In case, petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken on its application filed under Form 44, they will have liberty to approach this Court to revive the instant petition within the period indicated in paragraph 1(iii)(a) above.

¶22

To be noted, I am informed by Mr. Ramachandran that an additional affidavit dated 13.2.2014 has been filed in the Registry vide Diary no.44507.

¶23

2.1 The Registry will place the same on record. This affidavit will form part of the record.

¶24

2.2 A copy of the same has been served on the counsel for respondents.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petitions and pending applications are disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

¶26

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶27

FEBRUARY 13, 2018 rb

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

W.P. (C) 8426/2014 & conn.

Institute of Cellular Therapies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Institute of Cellular Therapies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Engineer (Civil) Sbpd, Prasar Bharti Vs M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited

Binil P.T. Vs the Govt. of Nctd and Ors.

Sunplast India Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Niranjo Devi and Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner Sadar Paharganj Zone and Ors.

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs G S Thind

Shaleen Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs the Maintenance Tribunal & Ors.

Amod Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (Tpddl)

Pradip Kumar Sethi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Baij Nath Chandok and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, New Delhi

Mr. Rohit Thakur and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Blazing Saddles Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Ms. Ranjana Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Lt. Governor and Anr.