https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385241 The Supreme Court set aside the notification proscribing a Combikit under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court determined that the Combikit, comprising separate drugs administered at different times, did not qualify as a fixed drug combination (FDC) and therefore fell outside the scope of Section 26A. Emphasizing the importance of therapeutic justification and regulatory compliance, the Court clarified that actions against irrational therapy should target medical practitioners rather than packaging or therapy itself. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Aug 2019 14:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385241 The Supreme Court set aside the notification proscribing a Combikit under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court determined that the Combikit, comprising separate drugs administered at different times, did not qualify as a fixed drug combination (FDC) and therefore fell outside the scope of Section 26A. Emphasizing the importance of therapeutic justification and regulatory compliance, the Court clarified that actions against irrational therapy should target medical practitioners rather than packaging or therapy itself. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385241