The appellant, having faced unsuccessful outcomes at the Delhi High Court, appealed to the Supreme Court regarding demands made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appellant's claims and emphasizing the appellant's dual role as a distributor and dealer, making them liable under Paragraph 13 of the DPCO.

Background and Initial Proceedings

1. Appeal to the Supreme Court: The appellant approached the Supreme Court after losing at both levels in the Delhi High Court.
2. Status Quo Order: The Supreme Court maintained the status quo regarding the recovery of the remaining amount payable by the appellant, noting that ₹1.25 crores had already been paid.

Proceedings Before the Delhi High Court

3. Writ Petition and Appeals: The appellant's writ petition challenging the demand notices dated 08.02.2005 and 13.06.2005 was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. Subsequent appeal (L.P.A. No. 1629 of 2005) was also dismissed.

Key Issue

4. Main Issue: The justification of NPPA's demand for recovery of higher prices charged for Roscilox, a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation, under the DPCO provisions.

Demand Notices and NPPA’s Actions

5. Demand Notices: NPPA issued demand notices for the overcharged amount and interest, totaling ₹4,65,08,333/-.
6. Recovery of Overcharged Amount: NPPA's power under Paragraph 13 of the DPCO to recover overcharged amounts was detailed.

Definitions Under DPCO

7. Definitions in DPCO: Relevant definitions of 'dealer', 'distributor', and 'wholesaler' under the DPCO were highlighted, noting overlaps and the basis of the appellant’s claims.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

8. Scope of Appeal: The Court restricted the scope of the appeal, noting issues not properly raised before the Delhi High Court.
9. No Specific Grounds: The Court found no specific grounds raised regarding the computation of the demand under Paragraph 19 of the DPCO.
10. Corporate Veil and Accountability: The High Court's finding of overlapping identities within the appellant’s group companies was noted, but the Supreme Court did not delve into this, focusing instead on the appellant's accountability.
11. Appellant’s Role: The appellant's admitted purchase of the drug from the manufacturer and its dual role as a distributor and dealer were crucial in bringing it under Paragraph 13 of the DPCO.
12. Incomplete Documentation: The appellant’s inconsistent versions and lack of proper documentation regarding its arrangement with Oscar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. were noted.

Conclusion

13. No Error by High Court: The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's rejection of the appellant’s claim.
14. Dismissal of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed, the status quo order vacated, and pending applications were also dismissed. Parties were ordered to bear their own costs.