Vimal Elaichi maker loses Delhi HC bid to quash FDA notice to ambassadors

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition by PB Agro LLP, the maker of Vimal Elaichi, challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the brand’s ambassadors, including actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter as the notice was issued by the FDA in Mumbai under the Maharashtra government and was addressed to three ambassadors residing in Mumbai.

The Court said PB Agro had failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

PB Agro had argued that Delhi had jurisdiction because the company is based there, its advertising campaign was allegedly conceived and managed from the capital, and payments to the ambassadors were made from Delhi. The Court rejected the argument, noting that the August 11, 2026 notice was not issued to PB Agro itself. The company was also not asked to respond, remove advertisements, produce documents or appear before the Maharashtra FDA.

The Court observed that PB Agro’s main relief was to quash a notice issued by the Maharashtra authority. Any alleged non-compliance would therefore have to be considered by the authority that issued the notice.

The presence of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in Delhi also did not establish jurisdiction, as no specific relief was sought against either authority and no order issued by them was under challenge.

The Court further noted that there was no material showing that FSSAI had directed the Maharashtra FDA to issue the notice or initiate action against the ambassadors.

According to the Court, PB Agro’s own pleadings showed that the dispute was primarily connected to Maharashtra. The company had argued that Vimal Pan Masala was prohibited in the state but was neither manufactured nor sold there, and that the FDA had wrongly linked the advertised Vimal Elaichi product with the prohibited pan masala.

The Court also rejected the argument that ongoing proceedings before the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) in Delhi gave it jurisdiction. It said the CCPA proceedings and the Maharashtra FDA notice appeared to be separate matters involving different authorities, and no CCPA order was under challenge.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that merely pleading a fact does not make it part of the cause of action. The fact must have a direct and material connection with the dispute.

The Court also held that Maharashtra would be the more appropriate forum under the principle of forum conveniens, as the dispute and the noticees were connected to the state.

The petition was therefore dismissed as non-maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction, without the Court examining the merits of PB Agro’s challenge. The pending application was also disposed of.