Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 3(f)

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of ‘manufacture’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in INOX Air Products vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) INSC 128 (30 January 2025)

/ Augustine George Masih, B.R. Gavai, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 18, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 27, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 3(f), Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the term “manufacture” under Section 3(f) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and its implications on the sale of drugs between licensed manufacturers. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Case Name: INOX Air Products Limited vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh. Judgment Date: 30 January 2025 Introduction Date […]

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of ‘manufacture’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in INOX Air Products vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) INSC 128 (30 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Drug Inspector Posts: Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 3(f), Eligibility Criteria, Judges, Navin Sinha, Recruitment, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Drug Inspector Posts: Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether research experience in a laboratory is equivalent to practical experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs for the purpose of eligibility for the post of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors. CASE TYPE: Service

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Drug Inspector Posts: Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top