Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Uncategorized (needs manual review)Supreme Court of India

M/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India

Not available · 2024 INSC 521Decided 15 Jul 2024
Not available
Justice Sanjay Kumar · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) demanded that Sun Pharmaceutical repay over Rs. 4.65 crore (principal plus interest) for selling a drug called Roscilox above the government-fixed price under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995. The company argued it was merely a "dealer" and not a "manufacturer," "importer," or "distributor," and therefore fell outside the reach of the DPCO provision used to recover overcharged amounts. The Delhi High Court rejected this argument at both the single-judge and Division Bench stages.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the company's own replies to the NPPA admitted it purchased the drug directly from the manufacturer, which brought it within the scope of a "distributor" under the DPCO, regardless of the technical overlap between the terms "dealer," "distributor," and "wholesaler." The Court also noted the company had given inconsistent accounts of its supplier at different stages of litigation, undermining its credibility, and refused to let it raise a fresh challenge to the DPCO's validity for the first time at this late stage. Finding the price-control recovery provision must be read broadly to serve its purpose of protecting consumers from overcharging, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the recovery demand.

Lesson Learnt

A business cannot avoid drug price-control recovery liability by hiding behind technical definitional labels ("dealer" versus "distributor") when its own conduct shows it operated within the regulated supply chain, and courts will not entertain new factual defenses raised for the first time on appeal.

M/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware