<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1993 (9) TMI 369 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290780</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court of India considered whether a notification banning fixed dose combinations of corticosteroids with other drugs for internal use was valid under Section 26-A of the Drugs &amp; Cosmetics Act and whether it unreasonably restricted trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Court relied on repeated expert examination by medical and regulatory bodies, which found the combinations irrational, difficult to titrate safely, and potentially harmful. It treated the ban as a public-health measure supported by expert material and found that lesser measures, such as warnings, would not adequately address the risk. The notification was upheld as a valid exercise of statutory power and a reasonable restriction on trade.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:19:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (9) TMI 369 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290780</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court of India considered whether a notification banning fixed dose combinations of corticosteroids with other drugs for internal use was valid under Section 26-A of the Drugs &amp; Cosmetics Act and whether it unreasonably restricted trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Court relied on repeated expert examination by medical and regulatory bodies, which found the combinations irrational, difficult to titrate safely, and potentially harmful. It treated the ban as a public-health measure supported by expert material and found that lesser measures, such as warnings, would not adequately address the risk. The notification was upheld as a valid exercise of statutory power and a reasonable restriction on trade.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>