Delhi High Court Denies Vimal Elaichi’s Appeal Against Maharashtra FDA Notice
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition from PG Agro, the producers of Vimal Elaichi, seeking to nullify show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) to brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. The court ruled that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to consider the case, which is fundamentally rooted in actions taken within Maharashtra.
Jurisdictional Limitations and Legal Observations
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma presided over the case and concluded that the Delhi High Court was not the appropriate venue to adjudicate the matter. The court emphasized that the core of the dispute pertained to the legality and validity of the actions initiated by the FDA in Mumbai, which are tied to events and regulatory concerns within Maharashtra. Consequently, courts in Maharashtra were deemed better suited for addressing such grievances.
The court noted, “The factum of petitioner operating its business from Delhi or engaging brand ambassadors from Delhi, especially when the impugned notice has not been issued to the petitioner herein, cannot by themselves confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court, in light of the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.” Importantly, the court refrained from expressing any opinion on the substantive merits of the case.
Background of the Regulatory Dispute
The controversy began when the Maharashtra FDA issued regulatory notices alleging that the advertisements for “Vimal Elaichi” served as surrogate promotions for “Vimal Pan Masala,” a product prohibited in Maharashtra. The regulatory body required the actors involved to substantiate that Vimal Elaichi is distinct from the banned pan masala products, and it demanded the cessation of the promotional campaign, along with the removal of related content from online platforms.
Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur represented PG Agro, arguing that the notice issued on August 11 was directed solely at the actors and not the company, which, according to them, faced irreparable damage. PG Agro contended that the Maharashtra FDA overstepped its jurisdiction by attempting to enforce advertising restrictions.
More Read
Legal Arguments and Related Proceedings
In its defense, PG Agro asserted that the surrogate advertising claims were unfounded, as Vimal pan masala had neither been produced nor sold in Maharashtra since 2001. Furthermore, they highlighted that the Supreme Court has banned pan masala containing tobacco nationwide since 2013. The petitioner also informed the court that the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) was already investigating similar allegations, yet had issued no directives against the campaign.
Advocate Rukhmini Bobde, representing the Central government and the CCPA, argued that the petition should have been filed with the Bombay High Court, noting, “The government of Maharashtra, which has passed the show-cause notice, is not here to defend its show-cause notice.” Bobde further mentioned that while the CCPA was conducting its proceedings, it had no objections to the Maharashtra FDA’s notice.
The petition from PG Agro was filed through advocate Dushyant K Mahant of S Jaina and Associates.
