Vimal Elaichi Ad: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Maharashtra FDA Notice To Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea by VIMAL Elaichi master licensee P.B. Agro LLP challenging a Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notice issued to its brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff over alleged surrogate promotion of pan masala.

The court rejected P.B. Agro's argument that its Delhi connections gave the Delhi High Court territorial jurisdiction over the Maharashtra regulator's action.

“The factum of petitioner operating its business from Delhi or engaging brand ambassadors from Delhi, especially when the impugned notice has not been issued to the petitioner herein, cannot by themselves confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled. 

The show cause notice was issued on August 11, 2026, by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Food and Drug Administration, Greater Mumbai Division. It was addressed to three VIMAL Elaichi brand ambassadors, all residents of Mumbai.

P.B. Agro, based in Delhi, is the master licensee for manufacture and sale of VIMAL Elaichi and pan masala not containing tobacco. It approached the high court after learning about the notice through media reports.

The company argued that its Delhi office, management of the advertising campaign, and payments to the ambassadors created a part of the cause of action in Delhi. It also relied on the presence of FSSAI, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) in Delhi.

P.B. Agro further argued that FSSAI was the apex authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act and that the FDA, Mumbai functioned under its directions. It also pointed out that the notice had been marked to the CEO of FSSAI in Delhi.

The respondents argued that the notice was an independent action by the FDA, Mumbai, under the Government of Maharashtra. They pointed out that it was issued to three Mumbai residents and that neither P.B. Agro's Delhi office nor FSSAI's location in Delhi could confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.

The court found no material showing that FSSAI had directed the FDA, Mumbai, to issue the notice or initiate action against the ambassadors. It therefore held that the notice was an independent action taken by the Maharashtra authority.

The notice referred to Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, concerning restrictions on advertisements and unfair trade practices. It also referred to Section 30(2)(a) concerning the prohibition of pan masala in Maharashtra.

The court did not examine whether these provisions had been correctly invoked. It also left the merits of P.B. Agro's challenge open.

The court noted that P.B. Agro itself had not been served with the notice. No direction had been issued to the company to reply, remove an advertisement, produce documents, or appear before the FDA, Mumbai.

It therefore held that the company's alleged injury in Delhi was based largely on its apprehension about the possible consequences of a notice issued to the ambassadors. Such apprehension did not amount to a substantial cause of action in Delhi.

The court also relied on P.B. Agro's own pleadings. The company sought to establish that VIMAL pan masala was not manufactured or sold in Maharashtra and that the FDA, Mumbai, had wrongly proceeded on the basis that a prohibited product was being manufactured, sold or promoted there.

These pleadings, the court observed, showed that the central controversy concerned the FDA's action in Maharashtra.

The court rejected the company's reliance on the CCPA proceedings in Delhi. It noted that those were separate proceedings and that no CCPA order was under challenge in the present petition.

The court also observed that accepting P.B. Agro's argument would mean that State food safety actions across India could potentially be challenged before the Delhi High Court merely because FSSAI is located in Delhi.

Such an interpretation, the court held, would make the territorial limits under Article 226 practically meaningless.

The court further held that Maharashtra was the more appropriate and convenient forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens, given that the notice, the issuing authority, the noticees, and the alleged activities were connected with the State.

The petition was accordingly held non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. It was dismissed without the court expressing any opinion on the merits of P.B. Agro's challenge to the FDA notice

For Petitioner: Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocates, Advocates Dushyant K. Mahant, Shivani G. Mahant, Ripudaman Sharma, Harish C. Suri, Radhika Yadav, Shreedhar Kale, Vignesh Ramanathan and Vaibhav Virendr Jain

For Respondents: Vinay Kaushik, Government Pleader for UOI, Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC with Vinay Koushik, GP, Vinayak Aren, Aishwarya Nigam, Advs for R-1 to R4 and Shubham Gill for CCPA