Delhi HC Dismisses Vimal Elaichi Petition Without Ruling on Surrogate Advertising Charges
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by PB Agro LLP, the corporate entity associated with Vimal Elaichi, challenging notices issued to Bollywood stars Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff in connection with advertisements for the mouth freshener brand.
For advertisement on our platform, do call at +91 6377460764 or email us at [email protected].
The judgment was pronounced on 14th September 2026 by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Nevertheless the court has not ruled that the ads were illegal or that the three actors broke any law.
The petition was however rejected as the High Court of Delhi did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition.
The court said that the notices in question had been issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in Mumbai. The violations also referred to activities in Maharashtra.
Therefore the Court held that Maharashtra was the proper place to challenge the notices.
This raises a salient question in Indian constitutional law. When a company is situated in one state but is subject to regulation by another, which High Court can be a court of first instance?
It also helps to focus on surrogate advertising, that allows a brand to display a legal product in an effort to generate awareness for another product whose advertising restrictions apply.
What is the Reason for Maharashtra FDA Official Notices to 3 Bollywood Stars?
The controversy erupted on 11 August 2026 when the Maharashtra FDA served Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff with show-cause notices.
The actors could be seen in Vimal Elaichi advertisements.
The regulator said the ads seemed to advertise the larger Vimal brand – which is also linked to pan masala.
FDA claimed that the advertisements in question may constitute surrogate advertising for another banned product, which is Vimal Pan Masala.
The notices asked the actors to describe how they became involved and to submit supporting documents.
The regulator also urged them to cease their involvement in the ads, as well as to delete the relevant advertising content from their ownership of online platforms.
“Was the claim that a display was advertising cardamom in fact being used to market another item?
But, simply because a show-cause notice is being issued does not automatically mean, that the person to whom the notice is being served has committed any offence.
It allows the person concerned the opportunity of putting his case before the authority takes any further step.
What Is Surrogate Advertising?
Surrogate advertising is usually defined as a promotional strategy that involves one product as a means of garnering attention for a different product, whose advertising is otherwise banned or severely restricted.
For instance, a firm that has only authorized one of its productss to be marketed may promote another product with the same brand name.
The legal problem occurs if the authorized product is mainly used for the purpose of promoting the authorized product.
This issue has often come up in India when it comes to booze and tobacco brands.
But, using the same name on one’s own ads cannot make them illegal.
Analyse the product and check if the ad content, its format and the legislation relevant to the ad.
In the Vimal Elaichi matter, the Maharashtra FDA asked if the advertisements for cardamom were encouraging the use of pan masala.
PB Agro denied that allegation.
The Court also did not record whether it found one side to be correct.
What Did PB Agro LLP Argue Before the Court?
PB Agro LLP filed a petition before the Delhi High Court to quash the notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA.
The company claimed the three actors had been hired to promote its cardamom brand.
The advertisements did not promote pan masala directly or indirectly, according to the submissions.
In addition, the firm said its adnet had been consistent with the relevant regulations.
PB Agro contended that the notices were served to the actors and not the company although bans on the campaign would be detrimental to its commercial interests.
It argued that the decision would result in commercial injury and conflict with its ability to trade.
There were also questions raised over whether the Maharashtra FDA could tell the product to be withdrawn.
Another point was the location in which the company made its operation.
PB Agro stated that its headquarters were in Delhi and that the lead affairs related to the advertising campaign were done at the above mentioned address.
It consequently filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking relief.
Why didn’t the Delhi High Court hear the case?
The central issue was territorial jurisdiction.
Territorial jurisdiction refers to whether a court has jurisdiction to hear a particular case based upon its geographic relation with the subject matter.
Writs under Article 226:-High Courts can issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for other matters.
“Article 226(2): when cause of action wholly or partly arises within limits of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.”
That level of interaction, however, may not be enough in some instances.
The facts upon which you rely should constitute a material part of the case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that PB Agro had not even attempted to prove that a material or substantial part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi.
The notices was an order from the Maharashtra FDA.
Addressed to Mumbai based actors.
The alleged regulatory violations concerned Maharashtra.
The court thus concluded that the true cause related to that of Maharashtra and not Delhi.
Does Having an Office in Delhi Give a Company the Right to File a Case There?
Not necessarily.
PB Agro supported its contention that the matter should be heard by the Delhi High Court with the Delhi link.
The Company referred to its business, the advertising campaign, and payments associated with the endorsements.
And that these facts did not themselves dictate the question of whether the notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA were valid or not.
In some cases, the Registered office or business address of a company can be relevant to the dispute.
However, this alone does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction over all government conduct that will impact it.
The court considered what gave rise to the challenged act and what facts were relevant for judging whether it was lawful.
Here, those factors were related to Maharashtra.
The Court thus dismissed the argument that the Delhi operations of the company were enough to attract the power of the Court to entertain the petition.
Help in PB Agro in Delhi?
The corporation was also made a party along with the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
Both authorities are based in Delhi.
The appellant submitted that these central authorities were a factor in its decision to seek recourse before the Delhi High Court.
The court disagreed.
Justice Sharma said the notices in question had been issued by the Maharashtra FDA independent of any other consideration.
Material was not placed on record to show that FSSAI directed the state regulator to make the reports available to them.
The court also observed that PB Agro was not contesting any particular direction issued by FSSAI or the Union Ministry.
If the complaint was really about measures adopted by a state regulator hundreds of miles from the respondent, simply naming a central authority as a respondent would not establish territorial jurisdiction.
The judgment distinguish between the place of headquarters of a regulatory body and the place where the impugned act was done.
What Is the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens?
The judgment also referred to the doctrine of forum conveniens.
