{"id":294114,"date":"2023-06-08T10:00:34","date_gmt":"2023-06-08T04:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=294114"},"modified":"2023-06-08T10:44:30","modified_gmt":"2023-06-08T05:14:30","slug":"glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/","title":{"rendered":"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h4>\n

In a bunch of petitions challenging the judgments and awards passed by the Labour Court (District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala), a Single Bench of the Tripura High Court in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<\/i> v. State of Tripura<\/i>1<\/sup><\/a> held that since Section 2-A(2)<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947<\/a>2<\/sup><\/a> (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act”) was repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016<\/a>3<\/sup><\/a> (hereinafter referred to as “the RA Act, 2016”). The Labour Court could not have entertained applications filed by the respondent workmen under Section 2-A(2) of the ID Act in July 2017 as it “lacked inherent jurisdiction to accept applications filed by the respondents”.4<\/sup><\/a> Section 2-A(2) had been inserted into the ID Act by Section 3<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010<\/a> (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Amendment Act”).5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The ID Amendment Act was enacted on 18-8-2010 and came into force on 15-9-2010.6<\/sup><\/a> Section 2-A(2) enables a workman to make an application for adjudication of a dispute set out in Section 2-A(1) directly to the Labour Court or tribunal (notwithstanding anything contained in Section 107<\/sup><\/a> of the ID Act) three months after the date on which an application has been made to the Conciliation Officer and after receipt of such application, the Labour Court or tribunal has the powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.8<\/sup><\/a> This ID Amendment Act was repealed by Section 2 read with the First Schedule to the RA Act, 2016.9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

According to the Tripura High Court, the ID Amendment Act, 2010 was repealed by the RA Act, 2016 and once such repeal took place, the Labour Court concerned “lacked inherent jurisdiction to accept applications” filed by respondent workmen before it.<\/p>\n

The purpose and object of a Repealing and Amending Act and its effect<\/h4>\n

One of the earliest judgments on the effect of a repealing and Amending Act was delivered by the Supreme Court in Jethanand Betab<\/i> v. State of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Jethanand Betab”)<\/i>10<\/sup><\/a>. The case before the Supreme Court dealt with the prosecution and conviction of the petitioner under Section 6(1-A)<\/a> of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933<\/a>11<\/sup><\/a> (hereinafter referred to as “the Telegraphy Act”).12<\/sup><\/a> Section 6(1-A) was inserted into the Telegraphy Act by the Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act, 1949.13<\/sup><\/a> A contention was raised by the counsel that since the aforementioned Amendment Act was repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 6(1-A) could not be sustained.14<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court. According to the Court:<\/p>\n

6. …<\/i> the main object of the 1952 Act<\/i> was to only strike out the unnecessary Acts and excise dead matter from the statute book in order to lighten the burden of ever-increasing spate of legislation and to remove confusion from the public mind. The object of the Repealing and Amending Act of 1952 was only to expurgate the amending Act of 1949, along with similar Acts, which had served its purpose.15<\/sup><\/a> (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court relied on Halsbury’s Laws of England<\/i>16<\/sup><\/a> which states:<\/p>\n

A Statute Law Revision Act does not alter the law, but simply strikes out certain enactments which have become unnecessary. It invariably contains elaborate provisos.<\/p>\n

A passage from the decision of Chakravartti, C.J. of the Calcutta High Court in Khuda Bux<\/i> v. Caledonian Press<\/i>17<\/sup><\/a> (hereinafter referred to as “Khuda Bux<\/i>”) was also relied on by the Supreme Court in Jethanand Betab<\/i>18<\/sup><\/a> which clearly sets out the purpose and object of a Repealing and Amending Act. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court reads as follows:<\/p>\n

8.<\/i> … Such Acts have no legislative effect, but are designed for editorial revision, being intended only to excise dead matter from the statute book and to reduce its volume. Mostly, they expurgate amending Acts, because having imparted the amendments to the main Acts, those Acts have served their purpose and have no further reason for their existence. At times, inconsistencies are also removed by repealing and amending Acts. The only object of such Acts which, in England, are called Statute Law Revision Acts, is legislative spring-cleaning and they are not intended to make any change in the law. Even so, they are guarded by saving clauses drawn with elaborate care….19<\/sup><\/a> <\/p>\n

Both the aforesaid judgments of Jethanand Betab<\/i>20<\/sup><\/a> and Khuda Bux<\/i>21<\/sup><\/a> have been referred to by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in K.K. Vasudeva Kurup<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i> (hereinafter referred to as “Vasudeva Kurup<\/i>”).22<\/sup><\/a> A petition was filed before the Bombay High Court, seeking directions and orders against the Union of India and the other respondents including,<\/p>\n

“1<\/i>. … courts of law everywhere in India, not to take cognizance of any case or proceeding under Sections 138<\/a> to 142<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>23<\/sup><\/a> as amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions, and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988<\/a> (Act 66 of 1988)24<\/sup><\/a>.25<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

According to the petitioner, the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1988 that had inserted Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, namely, Sections 138 to 142 had stood repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001<\/a>26<\/sup><\/a> and therefore, according to the petitioner since the Amending Act of 1988 was entirely repealed, Chapter XVII i.e. Section 138<\/a> to 142<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a> also stood repealed.27<\/sup><\/a> According to the Bombay High Court, the case before it was governed by Section 6-A<\/a> of the General Clauses Act, 1897<\/a>28<\/sup><\/a> and after relying Jethanand Betab<\/i>29<\/sup><\/a> and Khuda Bux<\/i>30<\/sup><\/a>, the Court opined,<\/p>\n

14<\/i>. … the ratio laid down in Jethanand Betab<\/i>31<\/sup><\/a> directly covers the case on hand and answers the question raised before us by the petitioner. To us, it is clear that once an amendment was made in 1881 Act by the Amending Act of 1988 and it had been brought into force, it has served its purpose and amended the original Act. Its object was to plant necessary amendment in the 1881 Act. Once such planting has been effected, the Amending Act (Planting Act), having achieved its object, lost its efficacy. It was thereafter not necessary to continue the Amending Act in a statute book. There are several such Amending Acts under which amendments have been made in original Acts. Once the plant takes root in the original Act, an appropriate step is required to be taken by the legislature. If no action is taken, hundreds and thousands of such Amending Acts continue to remain in statute books. A device is, therefore, adopted by the legislature to repeal all such Amending Acts, which would repeal only those Acts i.e. Amending Acts. But such repeal does not affect original Acts which already stood amended. As observed in Clarke<\/i> v. Bradlaugh<\/i>32<\/sup><\/a><\/span>,<\/p>\n

Where a statute is incorporated, by reference, into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second.33<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court therefore held that the repeal of the Amending Act of 1988 does not affect the amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The decision of the Queen’s Bench in Clarke<\/i> v. Bradlaugh<\/i>34<\/sup><\/a> relied upon by the Bombay High Court in Vasudeva Kurup<\/i>35<\/sup><\/a> was also referred to by a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs<\/i> v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty<\/i>36<\/sup><\/a> in which the Supreme Court had held that changes or repeal of the incorporated statute is not intended per se to affect the operation of the incorporating legislation.37<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

A similar view as taken by the Bombay High Court in Vasudeva Kurup<\/i>38<\/sup><\/a> also finds place in an earlier judgment of the Kerala High Court in Raman Sahadevan<\/i> v. R. Kesavan Nair<\/i>39<\/sup><\/a> which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

6.<\/i> In our opinion, the purpose of an amending Act is to plant the necessary amendments in the parent or the main Act, and once such planting has been effected, the Planting Act (the amending Act), having served its purpose, need not any more remain there to tend the plant, as it were: the plant has taken root in the main Act, and thereafter, the amending Act has only to be repealed: and if an amending Act is so repealed by a repealing Act, the repeal does not affect the plant, the amendment already planted in the main Act….<\/p>\n

In the judgment delivered in Independent Schools’ Federation of India v. Union of India<\/i>40<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to consider the RA Act, 2016 which had repealed the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 by which Section 13-A was introduced into the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972<\/a>41<\/sup><\/a>. Section 4 of the RA Act, 2016 clearly states that “the repeal by this Act of any enactment shall not affect any other enactment in which the repealed enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to”. The Supreme Court after referring to Section 4 of the RA, Act 2016, Section 6-A<\/a> of the General Clauses Act, 1897<\/a> and the judgments of Jethanand Betab<\/i>42<\/sup><\/a> and Khuda Bux<\/i>43<\/sup><\/a> stated that,<\/p>\n

28<\/i>. … the principle that, where the repealing Act states that the enactment thereof shall not affect any Act in which the enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to, means that there is an independent existence of the two Acts and, therefore, even on the death of the amending Act, its offspring survives in the incorporating Act.44<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Concluding comments<\/h4>\n

Therefore, considering what is set out above, the view of the Tripura High Court that the Labour Court could not proceed under Section 2-A(2) of the ID Act is clearly erroneous, per incuriam and contrary to the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jethanand Betab<\/i>45<\/sup><\/a> followed by various High Courts and is also contrary to Section 4 of the RA Act, 2016, which expressly saves other enactments in which the repealed enactment has been applied or incorporated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

* Practising Advocate at the Bombay High Court. Author can be reached at dormaandalal@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

** Labour practitioner practising in Pune and the Bombay High Court. Author can be reached at varunrjoshi@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> WP(C) No. 457 of 2020 decided on 10-9-2021. [pending uploading]<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Industrial Disputes Act, 1947<\/a>, S. 2-A(2)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Repealing and Amending Act, 2016<\/a><\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<\/i> v. State of Tripura<\/i>, WP (C) No. 457 of 2020 decided on 10-9-2021, para 9.[pending uploading]<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010, S. 3 reads as under:<\/a><\/p>\n

“S. 2-A of the principal Act shall be numbered as sub-section (1) thereof and after sub-section (1) as so numbered, the following sub-sections shall be inserted, namely—<\/a><\/p>\n

‘(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of three months from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.’ ”<\/a><\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Vide Notification No. S.O. 2278(E), Central Government notified 15-9-2010 as the date on which the ID Amendment Act came into force.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S. 10 deals with reference of disputes to Boards, courts or tribunals<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010<\/a>, S. 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 came into force on 6-5-2016<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> AIR 1960 SC 89<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933<\/a>, S. 6(1-A)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> Jethanand Betab<\/i> v. State of Delhi<\/i>, AIR 1960 SC 89, para 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> Jethanand Betab<\/i> v. State of Delhi<\/i>, AIR 1960 SC 89, para 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> Jethanand Betab<\/i> v. State of Delhi<\/i>, AIR 1960 SC 89, para 3<\/a><\/p>\n

15.<\/a> Jethanand Betab<\/i> v. State of Delhi<\/i>, AIR 1960 SC 89.<\/a><\/p>\n

16.<\/a> Jethanand Betab<\/i> v. State of Delhi<\/i>, AIR 1960 SC 89, para 6.<\/a> Reference was made to Halsbury’s Laws of England<\/i>, 2nd Edn., Vol. 31, p. 563.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> 1954 SCC OnLine Cal 132.<\/a><\/p>\n

18.<\/a> AIR 1960 SC 89.<\/a><\/p>\n

19.<\/a> Khuda Bux<\/i> v. Caledonian Press<\/i>, 1954 SCC OnLine Cal 132<\/a>.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> AIR 1960 SC 89.<\/a><\/p>\n

21.<\/a> 1954 SCC OnLine Cal 132<\/a>.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 552<\/a>.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a>, Ss. 138<\/a>–142<\/a>.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988<\/a>.<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> K.K. Vasudeva Kurup<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 552<\/a>, para 1.<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> Repealing and Amending Act, 2001<\/a>.<\/p>\n

27.<\/a> K.K. Vasudeva Kurup<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 552<\/a> paras 3 and 4.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> General Clauses Act, 1897<\/a>, S. 6-A<\/a>,<\/p>\n

6-A. Repeal of Act making textual amendment in Act or Regulation<\/i><\/b>.—Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which the text of any Central Act or Regulation was amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal.<\/a><\/p>\n

29.<\/a> AIR 1960 SC 89.<\/a><\/p>\n

30.<\/a> 1954 SCC OnLine Cal 132<\/a>.<\/p>\n

31.<\/a> AIR 1960 SC 89.<\/a><\/p>\n

32.<\/a> (LR) 8 QBD 63<\/a>.<\/p>\n

33.<\/a> K.K. Vasudeva Kurup<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 552<\/a>.<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> (LR) 8 QBD 63<\/a>.<\/p>\n

35.<\/a> 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 552<\/a>.<\/p>\n

36.<\/a> AIR 1962 SC 316<\/a>.<\/p>\n

37.<\/a> Collector of Customs<\/i> v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty<\/i>, AIR 1962 SC 316, para 41<\/a>.<\/p>\n

38.<\/a> 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 552<\/a>.<\/p>\n

39.<\/a> 1972 SCC OnLine Ker 164<\/a><\/p>\n

40.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1113<\/a>.<\/p>\n

41.<\/a> Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972<\/a>, S. 13-A<\/a>.<\/p>\n

42.<\/a> AIR 1960 SC 89<\/a>.<\/p>\n

43.<\/a> 1954 SCC OnLine Cal 132<\/a>.<\/p>\n

44.<\/a> Independent Schools’ Federation of India<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1113<\/a>.<\/p>\n

45.<\/a> AIR 1960 SC 89<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal* and Varun Rajiv Joshi**<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":294159,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[58307,58306,21654,9931,17041,52888],"class_list":["post-294114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-amending-act","tag-glenmark-pharmaceuticals","tag-industrial-disputes-act","tag-labour-court","tag-negotiable-instruments-act","tag-wireless-telegraphy-act"],"yoast_head":"\nGlenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a bunch of petitions challenging the judgments and awards passed by the Labour Court (District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala)\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a bunch of petitions challenging the judgments and awards passed by the Labour Court (District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-06-08T04:30:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-06-08T05:14:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/\",\"name\":\"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-1.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-08T04:30:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-08T05:14:30+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In a bunch of petitions challenging the judgments and awards passed by the Labour Court (District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala)\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-1.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"glenmark pharmaceuticals limited\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment | SCC Times","description":"In a bunch of petitions challenging the judgments and awards passed by the Labour Court (District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala)","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment","og_description":"In a bunch of petitions challenging the judgments and awards passed by the Labour Court (District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala)","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-06-08T04:30:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-06-08T05:14:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/","name":"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-1.webp","datePublished":"2023-06-08T04:30:34+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-08T05:14:30+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In a bunch of petitions challenging the judgments and awards passed by the Labour Court (District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala)","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-1.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"glenmark pharmaceuticals limited"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-v-state-of-tripura-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Tripura: A case comment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited-1.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":319737,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/09\/repeal-of-the-repealing-amending-act-analysing-the-implications\/","url_meta":{"origin":294114,"position":0},"title":"Repeal of the Repealing\/Amending Act: Analysing the Implications","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 9, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shivi Dangi*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Repeal of the Repealing","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Repeal-of-the-Repealing.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Repeal-of-the-Repealing.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Repeal-of-the-Repealing.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Repeal-of-the-Repealing.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283450,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/08\/khaitan-co-advises-eris-group-on-its-acquisition-of-a-part-of-the-dermatology-portfolio-of-glenmark-pharmaceuticals-limited\/","url_meta":{"origin":294114,"position":1},"title":"Khaitan & Co. advises Eris Group on its acquisition of a part of the dermatology portfolio of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"DEAL DETAILS Eris Lifesciences Limited | Brand agreement and supply of agreement between Eris Lifesciences Limited and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited NO HEADINGS DETAILS 1. Sector Pharmaceutical Industry 2. Announcement Date 17-Jan-2023 3. Completion Date 17-Jan-2023 4. Name of Client Eris Lifesciences Limited Eris Lifesciences Ltd is a publicly listed Indian\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law Firms News"","block_context":{"text":"Law Firms News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/law-firms-news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-339.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":18422,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/10\/08\/glenmark-restrained-from-manufacturing-and-selling-its-anti-diabetes-drugs\/","url_meta":{"origin":294114,"position":2},"title":"Glenmark restrained from manufacturing and selling its anti-diabetes drugs","author":"Sucheta","date":"October 8, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In granting permanent injunction to US drug company Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), the Court restrained Indian firm Glenmark Pharmaceuticals from manufacturing and selling its anti-diabetes drugs \"Zita\" and \"Zita-Met\", saying it has infringed patent of the plaintiff. The US drug maker in its plea had sought\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":296078,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/05\/delhi-high-court-grants-injunction-to-sun-pharma-for-its-mark-instamet-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":294114,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court restrains Glemark Pharmaceuticals from using \u201cINDAMET\u201d mark; grants injunction to Sun Pharma for its mark \u201cINSTAMET\u201d","author":"Simranjeet","date":"July 5, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The two competing marks \u201cISTAMET\u201d and \u201cINDAMET\u201d are clearly structurally and phonetically similar, and when seen from the eyes of consumer of average intelligence having imperfect recollection, there are high chances of confusion and deception. Confusion surrounding the mode of administration of a drug can lead to misuse and potential\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324619,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/18\/bhc-grants-ad-interim-injunction-to-glenmark-pharmaceuticals-for-mark-zitamet\/","url_meta":{"origin":294114,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Ordinary common man will be confused\u2019; Bombay HC grants ad-interim injunction to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals for mark \u201cZITA-MET\u201d against Gleck Pharma\u2019s mark \u201cXIGAMET\u201d","author":"Simranjeet","date":"June 18, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court stated that physicians, doctors, and chemists are knowledgeable in their field, however they are not infallible, and in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical products there cannot be any leeway for mistakes, since even a possibility of a mistake may prove fatal to the consumers.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":322771,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/23\/glenmark-pharma-monthly-claim-of-budgetary-support-fails-quarterly-claims-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":294114,"position":5},"title":"[Budgetary Support Scheme under GST Regime] | Sikkim HC dismisses Glenmark Pharma\u2019s monthly support claim for the quarter of July- September 2017","author":"Editor","date":"May 23, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court held that Glenmark Pharma should have followed the prescribed procedure while seeking the grant of budgetary support, and not work out a different procedure for the authorities to follow.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Sikkim High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=294114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294114\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/294159"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=294114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=294114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=294114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}