Delhi HC Dismisses Vimal Elaichi Maker’s Plea Against Maharashtra FDA Notices to Celebrity Endorsers on Jurisdictional Grounds

Key Highlights

• Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
• Petitioner: PB Agro LLP (Manufacturer/Licensee of Vimal Elaichi)
• Subject Matter: Challenge to Maharashtra FDA show-cause notices issued to celebrity endorsers for alleged surrogate promotion of banned pan masala.
• Core Legal Finding: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) cannot be manufactured merely because a company operates or executes payments from Delhi.

Background of the Dispute

1. FDA Action: The Maharashtra FDA issued show-cause notices to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff, alleging that campaigns for ‘Vimal Elaichi’ amounted to surrogate advertising for ‘Vimal Pan Masala’ (a product banned in Maharashtra).
2. Directions to Actors: The FDA directed the endorsers to provide documentary proof showing Vimal Elaichi is distinct from the banned pan masala, halt promotional campaigns, and pull down digital ad materials.
3. Petitioner’s Grievance: PB Agro LLP approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the notices, contending that the notices were issued only to celebrity endorsers without giving the actual manufacturer an opportunity of being heard (audi alteram partem).

Arguments Before the Court

• Petitioner’s Stand: PB Agro LLP argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because its registered office is in Delhi, ad campaigns were conceptualized/paid for from Delhi, and apex regulatory bodies—such as the FSSAI and the Union Ministry of Health—are headquartered in New Delhi.
• Respondents / Centre’s Stand: Counsel for the Centre and CCPA argued that the regulatory action, alleged statutory violation, and origin of the notice all took place in Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Court’s Key Observations

1. Lack of Territorial Cause of Action:

   “The impugned show-cause notice was issued by the FDA, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra – to the brand ambassadors engaged by the petitioner, who are residents of Mumbai – in relation to alleged activities and alleged statutory violations in Maharashtra.”

2. Doctrine of Forum Conveniens:
   The Court held that courts in Maharashtra are the natural, appropriate, and convenient venue to adjudicate the grievance.
3. Creation of Artificial Jurisdiction:
   Justice Sharma noted that merely impleading central authorities like FSSAI or relying on background facts (such as registered office location or payment execution) does not confer jurisdiction under Article 226(2) if no direct relief is claimed against those authorities.

Outcome