16 feared killed as fire breaks out in explosive unit in Trichy

Image courtesy: Fresenius Kabi ALSO READ Centre files petition to transfer FDC cases to SC Supreme Court refuses to stay petitions against demonetisation Supreme Court rules against Sebi in CIS cases Supreme Court gives BCCI time till today to fall in line Supreme Court bans sale of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR The Delhi High Court on Thursday quashed the central government s order to ban 344 Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC). The ban notified on March 10 included several popular brands including Corex Phensedyl and Vicks Action 500 Extra. A fixed dose combination (FDC) is a cocktail drug that contains two or more therapeutic ingredients packed in one single dose. The concept is widely accepted in global markets due to the advantages of lower cost and patient convenience. The Delhi High Court was hearing the cases filed by various pharmaceutical companies after the central government decided to ban 344 Fixed Dose Combinations earlier this year. The verdict was given by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw. The controversy arose after the central government issued a notification on March 10 pursuant to the Kokate Committee report banning 344 FDCs leading most large pharmaceutical manufacturers including Pfizer Abbott GlaxoSmithKline and Cipla to immediately challenge the move in the Delhi High Court. The Kokate committee had observed that these Fixed Dose combinations did not have any therapeutic justification. The court first heard the petitions on March 14 and provided the manufacturers interim relief by allowing them to continue production and sale of the notified FDCs on grounds that the drugs sought to be banned had been in the market for several decades and the notification itself did not make out a case of extreme urgency. NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Thursday set aside the Centre s decision to ban 344 fixed dose combination (FDC) medicines including well known brands like Corex cough syrup Vicks Action 500 extra and D Cold. The court pronounced its order after hearing arguments of companies like Pfizer Glenmark Procter and Gamble and Cipla the central government and some NGOs like All India Drug Action Network http://www.budokampsport.se/users/iphonelunchrs (AIDAN) over a span of over two months starting from March 14. The court had on March 14 stayed the Centre s March 10 ban on 344 FDC drugs and this interim order was passed in each and every case filed before it thereafter. During arguments the drug companies had contended that the government has not properly implemented the powers under section 26A (power to prohibit manufacture of drugs and cosmetics in public interest) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act under which the ban was ordered. They had also argued that the ban order was passed without considering clinical data and had termed as absurd the government s claim that it took the decision to ban FDCs on the http://www.purevolume.com/listeners/snapchatvideos ground that safer alternatives were available. The government had banned over 300 FDC drugs on the ground that they involve risk to humans and safer alternatives were available. As per the March 10 notification On the basis of recommendations of an expert committee the central government is satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in public interest to regulate by way of prohibition of manufacture for sale sale and distribution for human use of said drugs in the country. Defending its stand the Centre had argued that the FDC medicines are new drugs and thus require licence from Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) for sale and manufacture. The government had also said there were no valid licences for making any of the banned FDCs and added it was difficult to implement any action at state level. However it had also said that the lack of approval for these FDCs were a secondary issue and the primary focus was that they lacked safety and efficacy and thus ban was the only answer . It had also said that the banned FDCs had no therapeutic justification . AIDAN which had intervened in the matter had argued that there were nearly 40 000 FDC drugs in Indian market and since the regulatory control over such medicines was allegedly illusory the Centre s decision to ban some of them was the only move . Even the Indian Medical Association (IMA) had moved an application seeking intervention in the matter saying it has decided to support the Centre s decision. NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today set aside a government notification that had banned 344 fixed dose combination medicines. The decision has brought major relief to the country s pharmaceutical industry. The ban notified on March 10 affected around 6 000 medicine brands including several popular ones like Corex Phensedyl Saridon and Vicks Action 500 Extra. The banned combinations belonged to several therapeutic areas like cough and cold syrups respiratory formulations and even topical dermatological medicines. Drug makers immediately challenged the ban at high courts across the country with Delhi receiving over 450 petitions asking for a stay on the decision. Pfizer was the first to get interim relief from the Delhi court for its cough syrup Corex . Glenmark Procter & Gamble Abbott Sanofi Wockhardt Cipla Lupin and Dr Reddy s also figure among the hundreds of petitioners that opposed the ban. Justice RS Endlaw who heard the cases from March to June allowed their petitions. According to legal experts this means the government s notification has been quashed. The decision may have had a positive impact on pharma stocks--at 11:46am the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) Healthcare index was up 0.69% over its previous closing. A fixed dose combination (FDC) is a cocktail drug that contains two or more therapeutic ingredients packed in a single dose. Over 2 000 FDCs exist in India according to government sources. Among other reasons FDCs are desirable here for their effectiveness in treating many symptoms of illness at a lower cost than two or more separate medicines. The central drug regulator had undertaken an exercise to weed out FDCs that were not approved elsewhere in the world or not required in India due to better existing alternatives. It had argued that it banned these 344 combinations for public health safety reasons after an expert committee headed by Chandrakant Kokate found them to be irrational . Companies on the other hand argued that their brands had been in the market for decades with some even producing no objection certificates (NOCs) granted by the central drug regulator for their combinations. Before this judgment the government had moved a petition at the Supreme Court to transfer all FDC-related matters being heard in the country so that they could be clubbed and heard afresh. The apex https://quitter.se/psdtohtml court isexpected to make a decision https://architizer.com/users/backlinks-searches/ on whether to accept or reject these petitions this Friday. Written by Aneesha Mathur | New Delhi | Published:November 30 2016 5:11 am Delhi High Court Reaffirming that sons do not have any legal rights over the self-acquired property of parents the Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a man who had approached the court to be allowed to stay in his parents house. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life held the bench of Justice Pratibha Rani in a judgment issued on November 24. The order was issued on a plea filed by Nangloi resident Sachin who had challenged the decree by a trial court which had directed him to vacate the property owned by his parents. Watch What Else Is Making News Where the house is the self-acquired house of the parents the son whether married or unmarried has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents up to the time the parents allow the bench held. The legal dispute between the parents who are both senior citizens and their two sons had started in 2014 when the parents approached a civil court alleging that the two sons had made their life hell and were occupying two floors of the house owned by them. The parents had also said that the sons and their wives did not help with household expenses and had refused to pay even electricity bills. Further they had alleged that they were being treated cruelly by the sons. The parents had also attempted to disown both sons in 2007 and 2012 after filing police complaints against them and their wives. During the course of the litigation the parents had sought mediation with the sons and had sought maintenance from them. However the mediation was found to be a non-starter after Sachin refused to pay maintenance. The other son had not challenged the trial court order. NEW DELHI: A son irrespective of his marital status has no legal right to live in the self-acquired house of his parents and can reside there only at their mercy the Delhi high court has said. The court also said that only because parents have allowed the son to live in their house as long as their relations are cordial does not mean they have to bear his burden throughout his life. Where the house is self-acquired by the parents son whether married or unmarried has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents up to the time the parents allow Justice Pratibha Rani said in an order. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life the court said. It said this while dismissing an appeal by a man and his wife challenging the order of a trial court which had passed a decree in favour of his parents who had filed a suit seeking a direction to their son and daughter-in-law to vacate the floors in their possession. The parents both senior citizens had told the lower court that both their sons and daughters-in-law who were living with them have made their life hell after which they had given complaints to the police and also issued public notices in 2007 and 2012 debarring them from their self-acquired property. Both the sons and daughters-in-law had contested the suit before the trial court while denying the allegations. They had also claimed that they were the co-owners of the property as they had contributed towards its purchase and construction. However the trial court had passed the decree in favour of the parents after which one of the sons along with his wife had moved the high court. In the order Justice Rani noted that the son and his wife were unable to prove that they were the co-owners of the property while his parents have established their contention on the basis of documentary evidence. Justice Pratibha Rani of the Delhi HigH Court said that if the house has been self-acquired by the parents then the son married or unmarried could only stay in the house at the mercy of the parents. (Reuters) The Delhi High court on Tuesday directed that a son irrespective of his marital status does not have any legal right to live in his parents house. The High court said that the son could reside in his parents house only at their mercy . The High court said the son could stay only because the parents have allowed him http://figment.com/users/499734-teethdreams to stay in their house as they have cordial relations and not because they have to bear his burden . Justice Pratibha Rani said that if the house has been self-acquired by the parents then the son married or unmarried could only stay in the house at the mercy of the parents and not because he has a legal right to. The High court gave this judgement as it was dismissing an appeal made by a husband and wife who had challenged a trial court s order that had gone in the favour of the parents who had filed a law suit seeking the court s orders for their son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house in their possession. The concerned parents had filed complaints at the police station stating that their son and daughter-in-law had made their life hell . They had also issued public notices in 2007 and 2012 about debarring the son and his wife from their self-acquired property. The sons and the daughters-in-law had then contested the lawsuit in front of the trial court said that they were the co-owners of the house and had contributions in its purchase and construction. The trial court had however ruled the decision in the favour of the parents following which the son and his wife had moved to the High court. The High Court Justice Pratibha Rani on Tuesday noted that the son and his wife had failed to prove that they too had contributions in the purchase of the house while the parents had established their contention by revealing the necessary documents.