RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY S. Dr. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, NAGPUR MOOT PROBLEM 1

Similar documents
THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018

THE TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS. The important legal updates from the previous quarter are summarized below: Trade Marks Rules, 2017 Notified

Time allowed : 3 hours Maximum marks : 100. Total number of questions : 6 Total number of printed pages : 8

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 181 of 2017

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objection Advertisement) Act, R. Muralidharan Advocate, Patent Agent Law Lecturer Krishna and Saurastri

4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA

the court may be enabled to make a complete decree between the parties [and] prevent future litigation by taking away the necessity of a multiplicity

Patent Enforcement in India

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002 ( 62 OF 2002 ) { Passed by Rajya Sabha on 11.3.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: versus

INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM THE PRIMARY ORIGINS OF LAW: The Indian Constitution customary law case law, and Statutes (legislation).

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 788 of 2018

The Patent Failure of Novartis with Gleevec

: 1 : Time allowed : 3 hours Maximum marks : 100. Total number of questions : 6 Total number of printed pages : 7

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant. Versus. Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No /2017

M/s. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd Applicant VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.933 OF Dr. RAM LAKHAN SINGH. PETITIONER

THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR

MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Smt. Yallwwa & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 16 May, 2007

THE TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS AND TISSUES ACT, 1994 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name: TRYTON MEDICAL INC. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 567 of 2017 JANHIT MANCH & ANR...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS WITH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.

THE COMPETITION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2012

SCOPE Forum of Conciliation & Arbitration (SFCA) (As amended upto 2017)

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 33 of Alongwith Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 34 of 2017

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004

The Patents (Amendment) Act,

JUDGMENT. (Hon ble Arijit Pasayat, J.) Leave granted.

CA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) President of the European Patent Office

WRIT PETITION NO OF Dr. Madhav Vishwanath Dawalbhakta (Decd) through LRs. Dr. Nitin M. Dawalbhakta & Ors. Versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus P.V. KANAKARAJ TRADING AS. Through None. % Date of Decision : 05 th December, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :SERVICE MATTER WP(C) No.8133/2011 & CM No.2004/2012 Date of Decision:

ASIAN PATENT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS.

TNT India Private Limited } Petitioner versus Principal Commissioner of } Customs (II) and Ors. } Respondents

DVAT LATEST AMENDMENTS

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Pronounced on: versus -...Respondent

Case No. 02 of Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri S. B. Kulkarni, Member Shri V. L. Sonavane, Member

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey, Sr. S.C. I

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 694 OF Union of India... Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T

MAHARASHTRA ACT No. IX OF 1977

THE COMPETITION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2007

THE COMPETITION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1374 OF 2008

SCHEME FOR RELIEF AND REHABILITATION OF OFFENCES (BY ACIDS) ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.

AIR(SC) 5384; ; JLJR(SC) 131; MPWN(SC) 138; ; SCC

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

IJRFM Volume 2, Issue 5 (May 2012) (ISSN ) WORKING OF REDRESSAL AGENCIES ABSTRACT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO OF 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017

The Protection from Domestic Violence Bill, 2002

Patentable Subject Matter and Medical Use Claims in the Pharmaceutical Sector

JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION RANCHI. Case No. 21 & 23 of 2010 ORDER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2011) :Versus:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961

THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010

Meghalaya Public Service Commission, Limitations of Functions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS OF State of Tamil Nadu.Appellant.

ASIAN PATENT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION. 62 nd Council Meeting. Hanoi, Vietnam. Patent Committee Report: INDIA. Hari Subramaniam, Neeti Dewan, Sanjay Kumar

Bar and Bench (

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2019 MANTRI CASTLES PVT. LTD & ANR. WITH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE. versus

LEGISLATIVE NOTE. No. 4/LN/Ref/March 2018 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL, 2018

Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostics Techniques Act

FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

THE NATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No of 2013

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus

THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY BILL, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PIL WRIT PETITION NO.70 OF 2006

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2018

REGISTRAR GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. Tarun Verma, Advocate.

MODEL ANSWERS FOR MAIN EXAM QUESTION PAPER B.PHARM. Vth SEMESTER-2013; SUBJECT: FORENSIC PHARMACY & ETHICS-V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 Date of decision: 19th April, 2011 W.P.(C) 8647/2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 636 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2014 (arising out of SLP(C)No.3909 of 2012) JACKY.

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Co. Pet. 8/2015

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

2 4. RahulRaj Mall Notice to be served upon its Authorized Representative Notice to be served its Authorized Representative Dumas Road, Magdalla, Sura

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACT, 1997

THE WAQF PROPERTIES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS), BILL, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. W.P.(C) 2877 of 2003 & CM APPL No. 4883/2003

Transcription:

RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY S Dr. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, NAGPUR 14 th JUSTA CAUSA NATIONAL LAW FESTIVAL MOOT PROBLEM 1 Ram Rahim Joseph (RRJ) is a right handed Indian Citizen who has been living in the city of Nagpur since quite some time. As of the year 2015, his age is 49 years. He is a respected member of the society and is a well known figure in the region around Nagpur. That, on 25 th December 2014, owing to Christmas, RRJ was celebrating Christmas at a social function which was organized by a charity association. During the function, RRJ suffered a small paralytic attack, which came to be diagnosed on 26 th December 2014 as a neoplasm in the left hemithorax, with erosion of ribs and vertebrae detected. That, RRJ was getting treated in the Government Owned and Controlled Medical College and Hospital at Sonegaon, (GOCMCHS) which is a suburban area of Nagpur and was in the vicinity to RRJ s house. The said neoplasm was not benign, in situ, or malignant in nature. That, the cardiothoracic surgeon as well as the neurosurgeon who were treating RRJ knew that the condition of RRJ was critical and also that in order to save RRJ s live some drugs which are not normally available within India would have to be administered, though their efficacy in RRJ s case was questionable. While having a casual chat with some friends over the weekend, one of the doctors happened to mention this to Mr. Matrix, in the presence of the other doctor. Mr. Matrix owns and controls a huge pharmaceutical company which is engaged in research and designing of new drugs as well as manufacturing them. During research, it came to be known that the special type of tumour that Mr. RRJ was suffering from is in fact curable by 100 % when a combination of specific drugs is administered to him. However, the said research was merely done via using computer stimulation and no animate objects were tested with this finding. Accordingly, a combination of Isothipendyl, Sotalol, Phencylidine and Paracetamol came to be prepared by Mr. Matrix s company. Subsequently, Devil s Cure Inc., Mr. Matrix s company, applied to the licensing authority for permission to manufacture this new combination drug by 1 Drafted by Deoul Pathak, Advocate, Nagpur Page 1 of 5

making necessary payments as well by doing necessary paper work. However, the data as is required to be submitted under clause (2) of the relevant section of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 did not come to be submitted. The entire procedure came to be done on 2 nd February 2015. The said application came to be rejected on 3 rd February 2015. Thereafter, on 4 th, the next day, an application came to be made for conducting clinical trials. The said application came to be allowed. That, Devil s Cure Inc. sought the tests to be conducted at GOCMCHS. The same request was also allowed. The said trials at GOCMCHS were approved conditionally by the Ethics Committee, subject to the following conditions: a. That, consent of all patients being treated with the drug under testing was mandatory in writing, in the form of an affidavit before the duly qualified notary and the said affidavit was to be prepared in the language which was understood by the patient b. That, consent of patient s relative (necessarily a class one heir) was necessary in writing, in the form of an affidavit before the duly qualified Executive Magistrate and the said affidavit was to be prepared in the language which was understood by the patient as well as his relative in common c. That, the patient gave up his right to file any proceedings before any judicial / quasi judicial body, in case of any medical negligence d. That, the patient was made aware of all the treatment administered, in writing e. That, it would be mandatory for Devil s Cure Inc. to adhere to all provisions of necessary Indian laws regarding public liability insurance. That, needless to mention, RRJ was one of the subjects who was tested with the said newly prepared combination drug. That, unfortunately, due to complications arising in treatment, the DNA of RRJ underwent a small change, which resulted in his ability to do loco motor movements of the last toe of the left leg being hampered. This was despite of the ex majore cautela being taken by the Doctors treating RRJ. Unfortunately, the situation and condition of RRJ as demonstrated also required for administration of Imatinib Mesylate, which is a therapeutic drug for chronic myeloid leukemia, the sole marketing rights for which, then, due to some interim orders were with another company called as Baarish, whose drugs came to be known to the Doctors and Mr. Page 2 of 5

Matrix s company by way of their coming soon teasers, claiming cure to the said disease. Since, the drugs of Baarish were also under trials, with due permission from the Ethical Committee in Indian Institute for Medical Sciences (IIMS), it became mandatory for Devil s Cure Inc. to add Baarish as a co-applicant in its application for permission of clinical trials, by way of an amendment. The said amendment was permitted. Being aggrieved by this utter hopelessness, RRJ filed a criminal proceeding against both the Doctors - cardiothoracic surgeon and neurosurgeon Dr.Mr. Tea and Dr.Ms. Coffee alleging medical negligence and consequent attempt to murder, grievous hurt, hurt, bodily harm, et cetera. That, RRJ, through his relative Akku Yadav also filed a proceeding before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the same grounds of medical negligence claiming a compensation of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Only). That, RRJ also filed a Writ Petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court praying that he should be granted a permanent sum of money for the harassment done to him on account of those medical trials out of the funds and proceeds of the income of the pharmaceutical companies as his share and contribution to the drugs being sold in the market cannot be negated. The said Writ Petition was dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench is pending. Additionally, another proceeding was also filed by RRJ against Dr.Mr. Tea and Dr.Ms. Coffee alleging breach of confidentiality and breach of right to privacy as his medical details were leaked to Mr. Matrix, without his consent. That, Baarish Pvt. Ltd. filed a infringement of patent suit against Devil s Cure Inc. before the Principal Civil Judge of Original Jurisdiction at Nagpur claiming that since they were co-applicants in the application for medical trials, the combination drugs cannot be exploited by Devil s Cure Inc. alone. In addition, they sought sharing of license / grant of compulsory licensing in their favour from the IPAB at Mumbai. Since the turnover of Baarish Pvt. Ltd. was more than INR 700,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Hundred Crores only) and that of Devil s Cure Inc. was barely INR 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), and also since Devil s Cure Inc. felt that all the litigations were being sponsored by Baarish Pvt. Ltd., Devil s Cure Inc. filed an application before the Competition Commission of India alleging misuse / abuse of dominant position in the market. In the meantime, due to a lot of publicity / newspaper reports, Causes in Common, a very reputed NGO based in New Delhi, filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, in the nature of a PIL, by using the proviso thereto, claiming compensation for RRJ and his family members. Similarly, owing to the widespread reporting in newspapers, the Medical Council of Page 3 of 5

India along with the Indian Medical Association jointly filed criminal proceedings against Baarish Pvt. Ltd., Devil s Cure Inc., the Ethics Committee of GOCMCHS, Dr.Mr. Tea and Dr.Ms. Coffee (jointly and severally) for offences punishable under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, read along with the Rules framed thereunder and also the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954. All this counter litigations drew the attention of the Medical Council of India and they approached the Supreme Court for appointing a special judge for deciding all the litigations together, regardless of jurisdictions, (territorial, pecuniary or otherwise), regardless of hierarchy of judges, et cetera. Considering the same to be a one of special case, and falling under the rarest of rare cases, (for RRJ died during the pendency of this application), the Supreme Court allowed the application and directed that all the matters shall be heard by the Special Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The composite matter is fixed for final arguments before the Special Division Bench in RRJ, MCI, IMA, CiC (versus) Devil s Cure Inc., Baarish Pvt. Ltd., Ethics Committee of GOCMCHS and Dr.Mr. Tea and Dr.Ms. Coffee, where all the above mentioned issues are sufficiently proved and other medical terms are to be covered using documentary evidence at the stage of final arguments. The said writ petition is listed for arguments on 6 th March 2016 as per High Court website. Devil s Cure Inc. and Baarish Pvt. Ltd. have filed a writ petition (Devil s Cure Inc. and Baarish Pvt. Ltd. (versus) State of Maharashtra, Union of India, RRJ and others) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court inter alia challenging the applicability and constitutional validity on the following grounds: a. That the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, are in violation of the principles laid down under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India b. That, the petition filed by RRJ against them for breach of privacy and confidentiality is not maintainable, for the same is not a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India c. That, another limb of arguments is that the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act have been passed by the Central Government in complete violation of the law and especially the provisions of the Schedule VII to the Constitution of India as Health is a Subject at Entry no. 6 in List II and therefore, the Central Government had no locus to make the law in the first place. Page 4 of 5

That, the respondents have filed a reply and relied upon various factors, some of them being Entry 19 and 26, of List III of Schedule VII, amongst others and have invoked the Doctrine of Eclipse, Occupied Field, Pith and Substance, et cetera to support their arguments and opposed the writ petitions. Argue accordingly. Notes for Arguments: (Guidelines for Participants) 1. Teams are expected to argue the Writ Petition - (Devil s Cure Inc. and Baarish Pvt. Ltd. (versus) State of Maharashtra, Union of India, RRJ and others) before the Nagpur Bench of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay only. 2. However, teams are expected to draft their arguments by keeping in mind the contradictory stances taken by each party, against each other, in other litigations as well. 3. Certain provisions of law have been intentionally not provided for / have been provided for in an incomplete manner. The teams are expected to fill up the same. Page 5 of 5