Substandard drugs
Dismissing the appeal of GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd (GSK), the Supreme Court has given green signal to the Madhya Pradesh government to prosecute the pharma major for selling substandard quality drug, Betnesol tablet, in Bhopal. It said that even if there was inordinate delay in launching prosecution or filing the complaint by the government, ?it is of no consequence?. The sample of Betnesol tablets taken by a drug inspector in 1996 was declared as not of ?standard quality? by a state chemical laboratory. The complaint was lodged under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 against the firm, its managing director and officers. The firm challenged it in the trial and the Madhya Pradesh High Court on technical grounds. It submitted that the sample of the medicine ought to have been examined/analysed under Indian Pharmacopoeia 1996.
All the courts rejected the company?s plea to quash the criminal proceedings. Senior counsel R Ramachandran, appearing for GSK, submitted that there was no occasion for the authorities to file a complaint after around four years of the expiry date of the medicine itself and even the chemical analyst?s report was not clear. Counsel Vibha Datta Makhija, appearing for the state, contended that the pharma major failed to express its option to adduce evidence in contravention of the analytical report within a limitation period of 28 days. Unless the accused had given such option, it cannot ask the court to send the medicine for chemical analysis to the Central Government Laboratory, she said.
Property arbitration
An arbitration agreement in an unregistered deed can be enforced and acted upon for resolving disputes between the parties, the Supreme Court has held in the case of SMS Tea Estates Ltd vs Chandmari Tea Co. While setting aside the Gauhati High Court?s judgment that held contrary to it, the apex court said that even if a deed of transfer of immovable property is challenged as not valid or enforceable, the arbitration would remain unaffected for the purpose of resolution of disputes. These principles have now found statutory recognition in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to it, an arbitration agreement does not require registration under the Registration Act 1908. Even if it is found as one of the clauses in a contract or instrument, it is an independent agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration and is independent of the main contract or instrument, it said.
The dispute arose over a 30-year lease of two tea estates between Chandmari and SMS. The latter had invested huge money for improving the estates in the expectation that it would either be purchasing them or will have a lease for 30 years. However, Chandmari illegally evicted SMS in January 2008. So, the latter applied for arbitration. It was opposed by Chandmari by arguing that having regard to Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 and sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, which made registration of the deed compulsory, the arbitration clause was not enforceable and not binding on it. It also denied that it had agreed to sell the two tea estates for a consideration of R4 crore.
Job reinstatement
Even if a suspended government employee is acquitted in a criminal case, his reinstatement would not necessarily entail payment of wages for the suspension period, and the employer?s stand on the issue would be final, the Supreme Court has held in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs M Prabhakar Rao case. It further said that the courts or tribunals cannot interfere with any decision of the authorities to pay or not to pay or the extent of payment for during the suspension period. It set aside the judgments of the administrative tribunal and the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was liable to pay back wages and other consequential benefits to an employee during suspension period as he was acquitted in a bribery case.
Rao was placed under suspension on the complaint by one MR Srinivas for taking a bribe of R2,000 for allegedly under-assessing the rateable value of his house in Hyderabad for the purposes of calculating house tax. During the trial, the complainant had turned hostile and said that R2,000 paid to Rao was not an illegal gratification for reducing house tax. The apex court said that the ?opinion of the competent authority was a possible view on the material which the competent authority could form in the facts and circumstances of the case while passing an order in exercise of his powers … declining to allow the salary and allowances of the respondent (Rao) for the period of suspension.?
indu.bhan@expressindia.com