Liquor baron Vijay Mallya, on the run, turns to Supreme Court

New Delhi, Jun 25: After the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) given its approval to manufacture and market the generic version of COVID-19 drug Remdesivir, COVIFOR, Hyderabad-based drugmaker Hetero Limited has delivered the first set of 20,000 vials in two equal lots of 10,000 each across 5 states.

The first batch, which is being marketed under the brand name of COVIFOR, was delivered to Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat Tamil Nadu and Hyderabad. Hetero has set a target to produce one lakh vials of the drug in two-three weeks.

The other lot would be supplied to Kolkata, Indore, Bhopal, Lucknow, Patna, Bhubaneshwar, Ranchi, Vijayawada, Cochin, Trivandrum and Goa within a week to meet the emergency requirements.

Managing director of Hetero Healthcare M Srinivasa Reddy said “the launch of Covifor in the country is a milestone in addressing public health emergencies. Through Covifor, we hope to reduce the treatment time of a patient in a hospital thereby reducing the increasing pressure on the medical infrastructure overburdened ue to accelerating COVID-19 infection rates," he said as reported by news agency.

"We are closely working with the government and the medical community to make Covifor quickly accessible to both public and private healthcare settings across the country”, Reddy said.

Covifor is a generic brand of Remdesivir which is used for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalised with strong symptoms of the disease. The Health Ministry had, on June 13, recommended the use of anti-viral drug Remdesivir in moderate stage of COVID-19.

Dr Reddys Laboratories and Hetero are among others which have separately entered into non-exclusive licensing agreements with the original drug-maker Gilead Sciences Inc to register, make and sell the investigational drug Remdesivir in India and other countries.

Remdesivir would be made in the company's formulation facility in Hyderabad, which has been approved by global regulatory authorities such as US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) and EU, among others, Hetero had earlier said.

The treatment first showed improvement in trials on coronavirus patients and was approved for emergency use in severely ill patients in the United States and South Korea.

Bengaluru, May 14: ABB India has posted a profit after tax of Rs 66 crore during the first quarter (January to March) due to lower volumes including service revenue and unfavourable mix.

In Q1 CY19, it had reported a profit after tax of Rs 89 crore. ABB India follows calendar year as its fiscal year.

The company reported a profit including exceptional items and before tax of Rs 87 crore. The resultant under-absorption and mark-to-market impact due to forex volatility were partly offset by refund incomes and a one-time gain on sale of solar business during the quarter.

Revenues for the first quarter stood at Rs 1,522 crore, impacted by lower sales, non-receipt of delivery clearance, lower service revenue in the nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This impact primarily occurred in March, the company said in a statement.

ABB India said it continues to maintain a stable cash position of Rs 1,464 crore as on March 31 in a market where cash collection continues to be a challenge.

Besides, despite many activities coming to a standstill in March, the quarter was marked by commissioning for a mining major at Raigarh in Chhattisgarh, electrical and automation systems for a cement major and port and electrics, drives and automation for a leading mill in Bangladesh.

Terminal installation and commissioning for LPG, power management electrical control system for a leading refinery and commissioning of two units of a power plant in Kerala are some of the other projects where ABB's involvement ensured continuity and safe operations, it said.

On a global scale, the impact of COVID-19, as well as the fall in oil prices, has significantly impacted the short-term outlook. The global economy is expected to contract in 2020 after a rapid deterioration in outlook driven by the pandemic.

Despite unprecedented stimuli by governments and central banks around the world and initial signs of recovering economic activity in China, macro-indicators point to a global recession of uncertain duration as many countries continue to face restrictions with anticipated long-term economic consequences, said ABB India.

While the company is taking prompt action to adapt its operations and cost base to safeguard profitability, it expects the results in the coming quarter to be impacted due to the loss of volumes.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.