Asli Nakli

There’s been a slew of interesting OriginalFake court rulings over the last few days:

• The Supreme Court has held that only licensed allopathic manufacturers can sell Viagra.. The accused were engaged in the manufacture of supposedly Ayurvedic Ozomen capsules and Ozomen forte which contained quantities of “sildenafil citrate” – one of the primary ingredients of Viagra. Section 18(a) (i) read with Section 17B(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prohibits manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics which are ‘misbranded, spurious and substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance’.

The AP High Court had quashed the proceedings holding that the Drugs Inspector appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act had no jurisdiction to launch prosecution under Section 32 of the Act (which deals with offences pertaining to Ayurvedic drugs).The Supreme Court held that this was not a case of an Ayurvedic drug, but clearly one involving an allopathic drug which was sought to be passed off as Ayurvedic.

• In M/S PARAKH FOODS LTD v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR, the Supreme Court held that a company cannot be blamed and found guilty of misbranding a food article if the picture on its label has nothing to do with the food article concerned. From the Indian Express news report:

The product in question was soyabean oil and the label, as noticed by the High Court, contained pictures of vegetables like cabbage, carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions, which it found “are in no way connected with soyabean oil”.

While the High Court held that this was a case of misbranding, the Supreme Court took an opposite view

“In our opinion, the High Court has committed a serious error in arriving at a finding that the article of food (soyabean oil) was misbranded, since the picture contained on the label has nothing to do with the article of food in question, ignoring the fact that the article of food can be used for cooking the vegetables shown in the picture which cannot be said to be exaggerating the quality of the food in question.”

• The third case involves the advertisements of a pain balm called Volini manufactured by Ranbaxy which was accused of disparaging its rivals. Business Standard reports:
  

  The Supreme Court today directed Ranbaxy Laboratories to drop the word asli from its advertisement for Volini pain balm but allowed it to run the rest on television despite the protest of the manufacturers of a rival product, Moov.

  The Gujarat High Court had prevented Ranbaxy from running the advertisement which said that its product gives asli aaram while another product shown in purple is thrust away.
  Paras Pharmaceuticals, manufacturers of Moov, sued Ranbaxy for disparaging its product. The high court granted an injunction against Ranbaxy. Harish Salve, counsel for Ranbaxy, argued that hyperbole is allowed in a market which is not for the ‘faint-hearted’.