Rs 11.4 crore 'overcharging' demand on a drug maker quashed: price regulator's blanket ceiling notification struck down
India's drug-price regulator, the NPPA, demanded about Rs 11.4 crore, including interest, from a company for selling an osteoarthritis tablet above a 'ceiling price' that the government had never fixed for that tablet. The claim rested on a 2009 NPPA notification applying ceilings to any formulation containing a scheduled drug. On 22 September 2026 the Bombay High Court quashed that notification entirely and barred action on the demands.
This page records what the cited court, tribunal and government records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →Demands quashed on 22 September 2026; the 30 January 2009 NPPA notification set aside in full. Any appeal is not known.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the company made 'Cartigen Forte' tablets for osteoarthritis and that the Central Government never fixed a ceiling price for that formulation. The NPPA relied on a 27 September 2007 notification fixing ceilings for multivitamin and mineral tablets, and on a 30 January 2009 notification that brought any formulation containing a scheduled drug under an existing ceiling unless the maker got a specific price fixed.
On 13 October 2010 the NPPA issued a show-cause notice proposing to recover Rs 10,97,86,227 as overcharged amount. In 2014 it recalculated the overcharge at Rs 6,33,62,316, added Rs 4,90,71,525 in interest, and issued a demand for Rs 11,42,82,631. Recovery was then pursued through the Collector as arrears of land revenue.
The Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat described the 2009 notification as 'extremely widely worded', covering formulations for which no ceiling price had been fixed, and held that the power to fix ceilings under the 1995 order lay with the Central Government through its own mechanism. It also found that interest could not run from the original demand dates, given the NPPA's own delays and an earlier demand set aside for breach of natural justice.
The court quashed the 2007 notification as applied to the company's tablet, quashed the 2009 notification in its entirety, and directed that the demand notices not be acted upon.
What the High Court held
“since the impugned notifications dated 27.09.2007 and 30.01.2009 themselves are found liable to be set aside, the very basis for claiming that the petitioners had overcharged regarding the subject formulation is taken away”
Writ Petition No. 595 of 2017, judgment dated 22 September 2026, para 39 — read the full text
Charged for a price no one had set
The company was penalised for what it charged for its own product, under a ceiling the government had never fixed for it. The demand stood over it for sixteen years.
What we could not confirm
The company and its director are named in the judgment; this register describes them generically. The judgment does not state the company's sales volume or whether any patient complaint was involved.