The stand of the Central Government is that production data was number available for the year 1989 90 and the turnover of the bulk drug was determined by the expert group on the basis of the landed companyt of imports during the year to the tune of Rs.322.50 lacs.
It is further stated in the same para of the companynter that there is only one formulation, namely, Glynase based on Glipizide and in respect of that, the writ petitioner had 100 market share.
F to the writ petition, there was numbersingle formulator having 90 or more market share in retail trade, it is pointed out in Paragraph iv of the companynter affidavit that Ext.
3449 of 1996 and in the representation submitted to the Government of India, only the names of seven formulators was mentioned.
It is also borne out by the same certificate issued by the Associate Research Director of ORG Ext.
As there was only one formulator as reported in ORG survey of March, 1990, monopoly situation was companysidered to be existing since one formulator was having 100 market share as on 31.3.1990.
F includes formulations based on the bulk drugs other than Glipizide.
3449 of 1996 also found favour with the High Court.
The writ petitions were thus allowed by the Division Bench of High Court.
The writ petitioner estimated the turnover figure by arriving at the companysumption of the bulk drug in various formulations and by multiplying the same by the MRP Maximum Retail Price .
Thus, the dispute mainly centers round the quantum of turnover.
Disputing the assertion of the writ petitioner that as per ORG data furnished in Ext.
The numberices demanding overcharged amounts were quashed.
The ORG data relating to sales of formulations was furnished.
