- Home
- Medical news & Guidelines
- Anesthesiology
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Dentistry
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- ENT
- Gastroenterology
- Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Obstretics-Gynaecology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopaedics
- Pediatrics-Neonatology
- Psychiatry
- Pulmonology
- Radiology
- Surgery
- Urology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Diet
- Nursing
- Paramedical
- Physiotherapy
- Health news
- Fact Check
- Bone Health Fact Check
- Brain Health Fact Check
- Cancer Related Fact Check
- Child Care Fact Check
- Dental and oral health fact check
- Diabetes and metabolic health fact check
- Diet and Nutrition Fact Check
- Eye and ENT Care Fact Check
- Fitness fact check
- Gut health fact check
- Heart health fact check
- Kidney health fact check
- Medical education fact check
- Men's health fact check
- Respiratory fact check
- Skin and hair care fact check
- Vaccine and Immunization fact check
- Women's health fact check
- AYUSH
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
- Industry
Piramal Gets Delhi HC Relief, Decades-Old Spurious Tixylix Cough Syrup Case Quashed

Delhi High Court
New Delhi: In a major relief to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. (now Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) and its executives, the Delhi High Court has set aside criminal proceedings against them in connection with a two-decade-old case alleging that the company's children's cough syrup Tixylix was spurious.
As per a recent media report in The Hindu, the case dates back to 2002, when Delhi’s Drug Control Department collected samples of Tixylix from a city distributor. The following year, the Central Indian Pharmacopoeia Laboratory (CIPL), Ghaziabad, declared the batch “Not of Standard Quality.” Based on this report, the authorities filed a complaint in February 2004 under the Drugs and Cosmetics (D&C) Act, naming not only the retailer and distributor but also the manufacturer.
However, Piramal challenged the proceedings, arguing that the Ghaziabad laboratory lacked the capacity to perform the required tests as per the D&C Act and Rules. The company pointed to a subsequent test on the same batch conducted at the Government Analyst’s Laboratory in Vadodara, Gujarat, which found the product to be of standard quality.
Also Read: Piramal Slapped Rs 1502 Cr GST Demand Over Pharma Business Sale
Highlighting the contradictory government lab reports, the court in its August 28 judgment observed that “if two views are possible on the same evidence, the one favoring the accused must prevail.”
The High Court also flagged a procedural lapse: the Drug Inspector had failed to send both the Ghaziabad test report and the sealed sample to the manufacturer, as mandated under the D&C Act.
Concluding that no prima facie case had been made out, the bench discharged Piramal and its officials from the long-pending litigation, bringing closure to a case that had lingered for more than 20 years, the Hindu reported.
Mpharm (Pharmacology)
Susmita Roy, B pharm, M pharm Pharmacology, graduated from Gurunanak Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology with a bachelor's degree in Pharmacy. She is currently working as an assistant professor at Haldia Institute of Pharmacy in West Bengal. She has been part of Medical Dialogues since March 2021.