Delhi High Court dismisses Vimal Elaichi petition over FDA notice

MUMBAI: Vimal Elaichi’s legal battle has hit a jurisdictional roadblock, with the Delhi High Court sending the matter back towards Maharashtra.

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by P.B. Agro LLP, master licensee for Vimal Elaichi and tobacco-free pan masala, challenging an August 11, 2026 show cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Mumbai, to three of the brand’s ambassadors.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the Delhi High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter and said courts in Maharashtra would be the more appropriate forum. The court made it clear that it was not examining whether P.B. Agro’s challenge to the notice had merit.

P.B. Agro had sought quashing of the FDA notice and protection against coercive action involving the company and its ambassadors. The company argued that it is based in Delhi, manages advertising campaigns from the capital and makes payments to its brand ambassadors from Delhi. It also said the impact of the notice was being felt on its Delhi operations.

The company further pointed to the presence of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, FSSAI and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) in Delhi, while noting that the Mumbai FDA notice had been marked to the FSSAI CEO.

The Centre and FSSAI, however, opposed the petition on jurisdictional grounds. Their argument was straightforward: the notice originated with the FDA, Mumbai, under the Maharashtra government and was directed at three ambassadors who reside in Mumbai. P.B. Agro’s Delhi base, they argued, could not by itself move the dispute into Delhi’s judicial territory.

The court agreed, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish that “any substantial or material part of the cause of action” arose within Delhi’s territorial jurisdiction.

The judgment noted that the notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA, Greater Mumbai Division, and carried the heading of the Government of Maharashtra and Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. The three ambassadors named in the notice were also residents of Mumbai.

The court also rejected P.B. Agro’s argument that the notice’s practical impact on the company was enough to establish jurisdiction. The ambassadors had been directed to immediately remove advertisements from platforms under their control and not assist in disseminating them, while the company argued that some documentary information sought by the FDA could effectively be provided only by P.B. Agro.

But since the notice itself was not issued to P.B. Agro, the court found that the company’s Delhi operations and its engagement of ambassadors did not establish the required territorial link.

The presence of central authorities in Delhi did not change the equation either. The court noted that P.B. Agro had not sought specific relief against the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or FSSAI, nor challenged any order or direction issued by them.

The dispute also has a second regulatory thread. The CCPA is separately examining allegations of surrogate advertising and has issued its own show cause notice to P.B. Agro. The company had argued that the CCPA’s Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 already covered the issue.

That, too, failed to alter the jurisdiction question. The Delhi High Court said the presence of the CCPA as a respondent was not enough when the petition’s actual challenge was directed at the notice issued by the FDA in Mumbai.

Invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens, the court concluded that Maharashtra was the more appropriate and convenient forum for the dispute.

The petition was therefore dismissed as non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, without the court expressing any opinion on the merits of P.B. Agro’s challenge to the FDA notice. In other words, the Vimal Elaichi case has not been decided on the advertising allegations themselves, it has simply been told to find the right courtroom first.