New Delhi [India], September 14 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed 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 Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, holding that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the impugned notice dated August 11, 2026 was independently issued by the FDA, Mumbai, under the Government of Maharashtra, and was addressed to three brand ambassadors who are residents of Mumbai.
The Court said the petitioner had failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.
The Court rejected PB Agro’s argument that the Delhi High Court could exercise jurisdiction because the company is based in Delhi, its advertising campaign was allegedly conceived and managed from Delhi, and payments to the brand ambassadors were made from Delhi. It noted that the show-cause notice was not issued to PB Agro itself, nor had the company been called upon to submit a reply, remove any advertisement, produce documents or appear before the Maharashtra FDA.
Justice Sharma observed that the principal relief sought by PB Agro was quashing of a notice issued by the FDA, Mumbai. Any action for alleged non-compliance with that notice would also have to be considered by the authority that issued it. The mere impleadment of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), both located in Delhi, could not confer territorial jurisdiction when no specific relief was sought against them and no decision or direction issued by them was under challenge.
The Court also rejected reliance on the fact that FSSAI is the apex statutory body under the Food Safety and Standards Act. It said there was no material showing that FSSAI had directed the Maharashtra FDA to issue the notice or initiate action against the brand ambassadors. Therefore, the notice remained an independent action of the Maharashtra authority.
The High Court further found that PB Agro’s own pleadings showed that the real dispute was situated in Maharashtra. The company itself had challenged the notice on the basis that Vimal Pan Masala was prohibited in Maharashtra but was allegedly neither manufactured nor sold there, and that the Maharashtra FDA had wrongly treated the advertised Vimal Elaichi product as connected with prohibited pan masala. The Court said these pleadings demonstrated that the central controversy concerned the legality and correctness of action taken by the Maharashtra FDA in relation to alleged activities in Maharashtra.
On the proceedings before the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) in Delhi, the Court held that their pendency also did not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court. It noted that the CCPA proceedings and the Maharashtra FDA notice were, prima facie, separate proceedings arising from separate actions of separate authorities. No CCPA order had been challenged in the petition, nor had the CCPA passed any order concerning the Maharashtra FDA notice.
The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to reiterate that every fact pleaded in a petition does not constitute part of the cause of action. Facts must have a direct and material nexus with the dispute to confer territorial jurisdiction. It also held that even if some remote or incidental cause of action could be said to arise in Delhi, Maharashtra would remain the more appropriate and convenient forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens, since the entire dispute and the actual noticees were connected to Maharashtra.
The Court specifically distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Bakshish Ahmad v. Union of India, relied upon by PB Agro, noting that the case concerned the dismissal of a BSF member and involved a specific statutory and administrative framework under which authorities in Delhi were necessary parties.
The High Court said those circumstances were absent in the present case.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the petition was non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and that courts in Maharashtra were the appropriate forum for PB Agro to raise its grievances concerning the FDA notice. The petition was dismissed without the Court expressing any opinion on the merits of PB Agro’s challenge.
The pending application was also disposed of. (ANI)
Delhi HC dismisses Vimal Elaichi maker’s plea against Maharashtra FDA notice to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff
