Delhi High Court Dismisses Vimal Elaichi's Plea Challenging FDA Notice To Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff

Case Details

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

Case No.: W.P.(C) 12664/2026 & CM APPL. 58858/2026

Bench:. Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma

Counsel for Petitioner: Adv. Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, with Advocates Dr. Seema Jain, Ajay K. Jain, Dushyant K. Mahant, Shivani G. Mahant, Ripudaman Sharma, Harish C. Suri, Radhika Yadav, Shreedhar Kale, and Vignesh Ramanathan. 

Counsel for Respondents: ASG Chetan Sharma, CGSC Rukhmini Bobde, GP Vinay Koushik, Advocates Vinayak Aren and Aishwarya Nigam, Rakesh Chaudhary and Jay Sharma, Officer Shubham Gill. 

Date of Judgment: 14 September 2026

Summary

The Delhi High Court recently dealt with a petition filed by P.B. Agro LLP, the master licensee associated with the VIMAL brand, challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to its brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff. The main question before the Court was not whether the allegations in the FDA notice were correct. The immediate issue was whether the Delhi High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court held that it did not. Since the notice was issued by the Maharashtra FDA, the noticees were residents of Mumbai and the allegations were connected with activities in Maharashtra, the Court considered Maharashtra to be the appropriate forum. The petition was therefore dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

What happened?

P.B. Agro LLP is associated with the manufacture and sale of VIMAL Elaichi and pan masala products that do not contain tobacco. The company had engaged well-known actors, including Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, as brand ambassadors for its products. On 11 August 2026, the Maharashtra FDA issued a show-cause notice to the three actors in connection with the VIMAL Elaichi advertisement. The FDA raised concerns regarding the representation and promotion of the product and its connection with VIMAL-branded pan masala.

P.B. Agro approached the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the notice. The company argued that Delhi had a connection with the dispute because it was based in Delhi and several aspects of its business and advertising arrangements were handled from Delhi. The respondents, however, argued that the dispute was essentially connected with Maharashtra because the notice had been issued by the FDA, Mumbai, to persons residing in Mumbai and concerned alleged activities in Maharashtra.

Delhi High Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court did not examine whether the Maharashtra FDA was correct in alleging surrogate advertising. Instead, it first considered whether Delhi was the proper territorial forum for challenging the FDA action. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the impugned show-cause notice was issued by the FDA, Mumbai, under the statutory powers of the Maharashtra authorities. The notice was addressed to the three brand ambassadors, who were residents of Mumbai. The Court held that merely because the petitioner was incorporated, carried on business or maintained an office in Delhi did not mean that every regulatory action taken by an authority of another State could be challenged before the Delhi High Court. The Court further applied the doctrine of forum conveniens, holding that Maharashtra was the more appropriate and convenient forum because the notice, issuing authority, notices and alleged activities were connected with Maharashtra.

Final Order

The Delhi High Court held that it did not have the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Court clarified that merely having a registered office or carrying on business in Delhi was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction, particularly when the impugned notice had been issued by the Maharashtra FDA and the dispute was substantially connected with Maharashtra. The Court considered Maharashtra to be the more appropriate and convenient forum for challenging the notice. Importantly, the Court did not examine or decide whether the allegations made by the Maharashtra FDA were correct. The petition was therefore dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Sections

The Sections involved are: -

·   Article 226 Of The Constitution of India – High Court’s writ jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction.

·   Article 19(1)(a) of The Constitution of India – Freedom of speech and expression, including advertising.

·   Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Regulation of food products and related advertisements.  

·   FSS (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 – Rules governing food-related advertising and claims.

Conclusion

The judgment highlights an important point about territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A company having its office or business in Delhi does not, by itself, mean that every regulatory action taken by an authority in another State can be challenged before the Delhi High Court. In this case, the Court found that the real dispute was closely connected with Maharashtra. Therefore, instead of examining the merits of the FDA notice, it directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in Maharashtra.