Delhi HC dismisses Vimal Elaichi makers plea against FDA notices to Shah Rukh Khan,…

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by PB Agro LLP, the maker of Vimal Elaichi, challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the brand’s ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over alleged misrepresentation in advertisements.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the petition was not maintainable before the Delhi High Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court said that Maharashtra courts would be the more appropriate and convenient forum for the company to raise its grievances concerning the notices, in accordance with the doctrine of forum conveniens.

PB Agro LLP approached the Delhi High Court after the Maharashtra FDA issued notices to actors associated with advertisements for Vimal Elaichi. The company said it engages reputed actors to promote its cardamom product under the Vimal brand and maintains that its endorsement agreements and advertising campaigns comply with applicable laws.

According to the plea, the Maharashtra FDA alleged that the Vimal Elaichi advertisements amounted to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product that is banned in Maharashtra. The regulator directed the actors featured in the advertisements to provide documents establishing that Vimal Elaichi is a separate product from the banned pan masala products.

The notices also sought an end to the promotional campaign and the removal of related advertising material from digital platforms.

The company argued before the court that the August 11 notice was addressed only to the actors and not to PB Agro itself. Its counsel submitted that the company would be directly affected by any action taken by the Maharashtra regulator. The petitioner also argued that it had not been given an opportunity to present its case before the notices were issued.

The company had therefore sought relief from the Delhi High Court against the regulatory action.

However, the court rejected the plea on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by PB Agro LLP, the maker of Vimal Elaichi, challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the brand’s ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over alleged misrepresentation in advertisements.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the petition was not maintainable before the Delhi High Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court said that Maharashtra courts would be the more appropriate and convenient forum for the company to raise its grievances concerning the notices, in accordance with the doctrine of forum conveniens.

PB Agro LLP approached the Delhi High Court after the Maharashtra FDA issued notices to actors associated with advertisements for Vimal Elaichi. The company said it engages reputed actors to promote its cardamom product under the Vimal brand and maintains that its endorsement agreements and advertising campaigns comply with applicable laws.

According to the plea, the Maharashtra FDA alleged that the Vimal Elaichi advertisements amounted to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product that is banned in Maharashtra. The regulator directed the actors featured in the advertisements to provide documents establishing that Vimal Elaichi is a separate product from the banned pan masala products.

The notices also sought an end to the promotional campaign and the removal of related advertising material from digital platforms.

The company argued before the court that the August 11 notice was addressed only to the actors and not to PB Agro itself. Its counsel submitted that the company would be directly affected by any action taken by the Maharashtra regulator. The petitioner also argued that it had not been given an opportunity to present its case before the notices were issued.

The company had therefore sought relief from the Delhi High Court against the regulatory action.

However, the court rejected the plea on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.