Conjunctive reading of manufacturer conditions under the clinical samples exemption upheld company's entitlement to relief.

The exemption notification for clinical samples turned on the definition of "manufacturer" applicable to a company, which stated that the company must neither hold shares in any foreign company nor have any part of its capital held by a foreigner or foreign company. The Supreme Court accepted that the word "and" in the definition was conjunctive, so both conditions had to coexist to disqualify the company. Because only the second condition was not met, the company did not lose manufacturer status for the purposes of the notification. The respondent company was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the exemption notification for clinical samples, the conditions in the definition of "manufacturer" required both limbs to be satisfied conjunctively, and whether the respondent company was entitled to the exemption.

Analysis: The notification exempted clinical samples cleared by a manufacturer of patent or proprietary medicines, subject to specified conditions. Under the explanatory definition applicable to a company, the text required that the company neither hold shares in any foreign company nor have any part of its capital held by a foreigner or foreign company. The wording used the conjunction "and" between the two conditions. The Court accepted the High Court's construction that the word "and" was conjunctive, so both conditions had to coexist for ineligibility, and failure of only the second condition did not deprive the company of manufacturer status for the purposes of the notification.

Conclusion: The respondent company was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification, and the appeal failed.

---