Misplaced Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Refuses Vimal Elaichi’s Challenge Against Maharashtra FDA Notices

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by P.B. Agro LLP (makers of Vimal Elaichi) challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA to its celebrity brand ambassadors, ruling that the petition was non-maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction and invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Case Name: P.B. Agro LLP v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench & Panel: Single Judge Bench — Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Petitioner’s Representation: Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur

Respondents’ Representation: Advocate Rukhmini Bobde (for Union of India & CCPA)

Parties & Their Relationship

• Petitioner: P.B. Agro LLP, the master licensee and manufacturer responsible for producing and marketing “Vimal Elaichi” (a non-tobacco mouth freshener product).
• Respondents: Union of India, Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA Greater Mumbai Division.
• Third-Party Actors/Ambassadors: Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff—celebrity brand ambassadors who featured in Vimal Elaichi advertisements and received show-cause notices directly from the Maharashtra FDA.
• Nature of Relationship: Manufacturer/Licensee seeking constitutional writ relief under Article 226 against state-level regulatory show-cause notices issued to its hired celebrity endorsers.

Main Issue

Can a Delhi-based company file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court to block regulatory show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA to Mumbai-based actors over an advertisement campaign, simply because the company operates out of Delhi and the central regulators are located there?

In-Depth Factual Background & Legal Arguments

On August 11, 2026, the Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA Greater Mumbai Division issued show-cause notices to brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. The regulatory notice alleged that advertisements promoting “Vimal Elaichi” amounted to surrogate advertising for “Vimal Pan Masala”—a product banned within Maharashtra. The FDA directed the actors to supply documentation proving Vimal Elaichi is a distinct product and directed a halt to the ad campaign.

P.B. Agro LLP approached the Delhi High Court under Articles 226(1) and 226(2) of the Constitution seeking to quash these notices.

Key Legal Arguments

• Petitioner (P.B. Agro LLP):
  1. The petition is maintainable in Delhi because the company operates from Delhi, manages ad campaigns from the capital, and pays brand ambassadors from Delhi.
  2. The apex food safety regulator (FSSAI) and consumer regulator (CCPA) are seated in Delhi.
  3. Commercial and economic injury resulting from the ad stoppage is suffered by the company in Delhi.
  4. The surrogate advertising allegations are unfounded, as pan masala with tobacco has been banned nationwide by the Supreme Court since 2013, and Vimal pan masala has not been sold in Maharashtra since 2001.
• Respondents (Central Govt & Regulators):
  1. The impugned show-cause notice was independently issued by the FDA Greater Mumbai Division under state statutory powers.
  2. The Maharashtra government/FDA was not present to defend its notice in Delhi, and the appropriate forum for challenging the regulatory action is the Bombay High Court.

Legal Reasoning & Analysis

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the petition without expressing an opinion on the underlying merits of the case, holding that the Delhi High Court completely lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Key Judicial Findings

1. Source & Character of Action: Merely impleading Central Ministries or referring to FSSAI/CCPA (located in Delhi) does not confer jurisdiction when no specific relief is sought against them and the core challenge is directed at a state authority’s notice.
2. Location of Business Insufficient: Operating an office or suffering secondary commercial losses in Delhi does not shift the cause of action away from Maharashtra, where the regulatory action was initiated and enforced.
3. Notices Issued to Third Parties: The impugned notices were addressed to Mumbai-resident actors by a Mumbai-based regulator regarding alleged violations within Maharashtra.
4. Doctrine of Forum Conveniens: The Court held that even if a remote or microscopic part of the cause of action could be traced to Delhi, the courts in Maharashtra represent the most appropriate, natural, and convenient forum to adjudicate the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

Binding Principle: The location of a company’s registered office or the seat of apex federal regulatory bodies in the national capital does not confer territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution upon the Delhi High Court when the core cause of action arises from an independent regulatory notice issued by a state authority in another jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of forum conveniens, the courts where the regulatory action originated constitute the proper legal forum.

Obiter Dicta

• Impleadment of Central Bodies: Parties cannot artificially create territorial jurisdiction in the High Court of the national capital by merely naming Union Ministries or statutory apex bodies as nominal respondents without seeking substantive relief against them.
• No Opinion on Merits: Declining jurisdiction on technical and procedural grounds leaves the substantive legal merits—including allegations of surrogate advertising—open to determination before the competent territorial court.

Application & Directions Issued by the Court

• Plea Dismissed: The writ petition filed by P.B. Agro LLP was dismissed as non-maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
• Liberty Granted: The petitioner was left free to raise its grievances and legal challenges concerning the show-cause notices before the appropriate judicial forums/courts in Maharashtra.

Final Outcome & Verdict

Petition Dismissed. The Delhi High Court refused to quash the Maharashtra FDA notices issued to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff, ruling that the courts in Maharashtra hold the sole and proper jurisdiction to hear the dispute.