The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by PB Agro LLP, associated with Vimal Elaichi, challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the Delhi High Court did not have the required territorial jurisdiction to hear the challenge. The court said Maharashtra was the appropriate and convenient forum because the notices were issued by the Mumbai-based FDA in relation to alleged activities and regulatory violations in Maharashtra.
Importantly, the court did not rule on the merits of the FDA notices or determine whether the alleged violations had occurred.
Maharashtra FDA Notices Focus on Vimal Elaichi Advertisements
The dispute concerns advertisements for Vimal Elaichi featuring the three actors. According to the petition and reporting on the case, the Maharashtra FDA alleged that the advertisements could amount to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala.
The FDA's August 11 notices reportedly asked the actors to stop participating in the promotional campaign, remove related material from digital platforms and provide documents concerning their endorsement agreements and due diligence. The regulator also sought clarification on whether Vimal Elaichi was being promoted independently or as a surrogate communication for pan masala or tobacco-related products.
PB Agro argued that it engages the actors to promote its cardamom product and that its endorsement agreements require advertisements to comply with applicable laws.
Why the Delhi High Court Declined Jurisdiction
PB Agro approached the Delhi High Court arguing, among other things, that its business operations were based in Delhi and that aspects of the advertising campaign and payments to the actors were connected with the capital.
The court found those connections insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction. Justice Sharma noted that the notices were issued by the Maharashtra FDA to brand ambassadors residing in Mumbai and concerned alleged activities in Maharashtra. The company itself was not the direct recipient of the notices.
The court also considered the company's decision to implead the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), both based in Delhi. However, the court observed that no specific relief was sought against those authorities and no order or direction issued by them was being challenged.
The court therefore concluded that the presence of those authorities in Delhi did not independently create territorial jurisdiction.
Court Leaves Merits of FDA Action Open
The dismissal was based on jurisdiction rather than on the substance of the regulatory dispute.
This means the Delhi High Court did not determine whether the Vimal Elaichi advertisements constituted surrogate advertising or whether the Maharashtra FDA's notices were legally justified. The underlying regulatory questions remain open for consideration before the appropriate forum.
The distinction is significant because a dismissal on territorial jurisdiction does not amount to a judicial finding that the allegations in the show-cause notices have been proved.
Maharashtra Remains the Relevant Legal Forum
The court's order directs the dispute toward Maharashtra, where the regulatory action originated.
For businesses operating across multiple states, the case also highlights the importance of understanding where a regulatory action actually arises. A company's registered office or commercial activities in another state do not necessarily give its courts jurisdiction over every dispute involving a state authority elsewhere.
For businesses managing advertising, endorsements and regulatory compliance, maintaining clear documentation can also form an important part of bookkeeping services in india, particularly where commercial agreements and financial records span multiple jurisdictions.
What This Means
The Delhi High Court has not ruled on whether the Vimal Elaichi advertisements violated applicable regulations. Its decision only holds that the challenge to the Maharashtra FDA notices should not be heard by the Delhi High Court on territorial-jurisdiction grounds.
The underlying regulatory proceedings and allegations therefore remain separate from the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction ruling.