Delhi HC rejects Vimal Elaichi's plea over Maharashtra FDA notices to SRK, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that the company had failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.

The Delhi high court on Monday dismissed a petition by PB Agro LLP, the manufacturer of mouth freshener "Vimal Elaichi", challenging notices issued by Maharashtra’s Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff over allegations of surrogate advertising.

A bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that the company had failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi and emphasised that the show cause notice was issued by the Mumbai-based Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the company’s brand ambassadors, who were residents of Mumbai, in connection with alleged activities and statutory violations in Maharashtra.

ALSO READ | Why Delhi HC rejected Vimal Elaichi makers' plea over FDA notice to SRK, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 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,” the court said.

“Though the petitioner has impleaded the ministry and the FSSAI, which are situated in Delhi, as parties in the writ petition, neither any specific relief is claimed against either of them, nor any direction or order passed by these authorities has been challenged before the court or even placed on record with the writ petition. 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,” Justice Sharma said.

The company had petitioned the high court over the Food and Drug Administration’s notice of August 11 that directed the three actors to stop endorsing “Vimal Elaichi”, contended that the advertisement was surrogate advertising for pan masala, which was a prohibited food product in Maharashtra, and to disclose their due diligence on whether Vimal Elaichi was an independent product or a surrogate advertisement for pan masala or tobacco.

Lawyer Rukmini Bobde, who appeared for the Centre, objected to the company filing its petition before the Delhi high court, reasoning that the notice was issued by the Maharashtra FDA’s assistant commissioner in Mumbai, the brand ambassadors lived there, but the company selected Delhi only because the company was based in the capital.

“Even the FSSAI Delhi is not in a position to answer,” she added.

PB Agro’s lawyer, Dayan Krishnan, argued that the ad could be seen in Delhi as well, not just Maharashtra, and that FSSAI lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice. He added that FSSAI’s powers under the FSS Act were limited to determining whether a food product was safe or unsafe or contained prohibited ingredients.

In its petition, PB Agro termed the notice arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The company maintained that its advertising campaign complied with applicable laws and that it engaged the celebrities solely to endorse its cardamom product under the VIMAL brand.

The company further submitted that, apart from cardamom, it manufactured only pan masala without chewing tobacco under the Vimal brand, which it claimed had never been directly or indirectly promoted through the campaign. It also argued that although the notice was issued in connection with its advertisement, it was issued to the brand ambassadors, not the company, and that any action arising from the notice would cause irreparable harm to the company without allowing it to be heard.