- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 125/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Both grounds fell on the same defect, that the order did not acknowledge what had actually been filed. The written submissions set out comparative data against four cited documents to show technical advancement, yet the order recorded that the applicant had failed to establish any, which was contrary to the record. On section 3(e) the Controller never engaged the foundation of the claim, a tablet that dissolves because it carries no enteric coating, giving higher concentration without losing late release.
Disposition
Allowed. Matter remitted for de novo examination by a different Controller.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.