The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by PB Agro, the company associated with Vimal Elaichi, challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to Bollywood
actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over an alleged surrogate advertisement for Vimal pan masala.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the petition, holding that the matter did not fall within the Delhi High Court’s territorial jurisdiction. The court observed that Maharashtra would be the more appropriate forum for raising the grievances and objections arising from the notices issued by the state FDA.
The court further held that the petitioner had failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. PB Agro had argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the company was based in Delhi, while its advertising campaign was allegedly conceptualised, prepared and managed from the national capital. The company had also contended that payments to the brand ambassadors were made from Delhi.
However, the court rejected these grounds and noted that the show-cause notices had not been issued to PB Agro itself. The company had also not been called upon to file a response, remove any advertisement, produce documents or appear before the Maharashtra FDA.
The dispute relates to notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff in connection with the alleged surrogate promotion of Vimal pan masala. The actors have been associated with advertisements for Vimal Elaichi, a product marketed by the company.
Earlier on Monday, the Delhi High Court had reserved its verdict on the jurisdictional issue after hearing the plea filed by PB Agro. The company had sought directions to quash the show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA.
During the hearing, the petitioner argued that the notices were issued only to the actors and not to the company, despite PB Agro being the entity that could suffer irreparable harm from any action concerning the advertisement. It also contended that the Maharashtra FDA lacked jurisdiction to issue directions seeking to halt the advertisement.
The Centre and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), however, opposed the maintainability of the petition before the Delhi High Court. They argued that the company should have approached the Bombay High Court since the impugned action had been taken by the Maharashtra FDA.
The CCPA submitted that although it was examining the issue independently, it had no objection to the Maharashtra FDA issuing the notices.
