New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea by Vimal Elaichi maker PB Agro LLP, which sought quashing of showcause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to its high-profile brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over alleged misrepresentation of the product in advertisements.
The notices alleged that Vimal Elaichi ads amounted to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, which is banned in Maharashtra.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that the petition was not maintainable before Delhi High Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The high court said courts in Maharashtra were the more appropriate forum for the petitioner to raise grievances concerning the impugned notice.
“The petition is therefore dismissed on this ground, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s challenge. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of,” the order said.
In the petition, PB Agro LLP said it engaged reputed actors to promote its cardamom product under the brand Vimal, and that its endorsement agreements and advertisement campaign were in full compliance with applicable laws.
PB Agro LLP said the FDA had directed the three actors to submit documents showing that Vimal Elaichi was different from the banned pan masala products. FDA had also called for the promotional campaign to be stopped and related material to be removed from digital platforms.
The high court said the petitioner failed to show that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court.
“The impugned showcause 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 high court said, adding that although the petitioner had made the ministry and the FSSAI, both based in Delhi, parties to the case, “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 high court dismissed PB Agro LLP’s plea on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, and allowed it to pursue its challenge in Maharashtra if it wanted.
