- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
On December 13, Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court refused to grant any immediate relief to Johnson and Johnson (J&J), which had challenged at the court a central government directive to compensate patients affected by its faulty hip implants.Justice Bakhru observed that it would not be ‘apposite’ to pass any orders in the matter when the issue related to the compensation...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
On December 13, Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court refused to grant any immediate relief to Johnson and Johnson (J&J), which had challenged at the court a central government directive to compensate patients affected by its faulty hip implants.
Justice Bakhru observed that it would not be ‘apposite’ to pass any orders in the matter when the issue related to the compensation was pending before the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, J&J stated that it had not received any notice by the top court and that it was not aware of any orders passed by the apex court.
In response, disagreeing with J&J’s statement, the HC said, "Now you know the matter is there in Supreme Court. Take appropriate steps"
Requesting the HC to intervene in the matter, J&J stated that it was never given a chance to appear before the central expert panel, which created the formula to compensate patients who received the "faulty" hip implants produced by J&J's subsidiary, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc (USA).
The HC then said, "Some matters are important and some are urgent. Unfortunately, this does not fall under either of the two categories."
Thereafter, Centre’s Standing Counsel Gaurang Kanth stated that the SC was seized of the issue in which J&J was also a party. Kanth further added that the report of the expert committee had already been placed before the SC.
The high court thus concluded, "In view of the above, the court does not think it apposite to pass any orders at this stage. Further consideration of the petition is deferred to await outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court."
The court then listed the matter for further hearing on February 26, 2019.