New Delhi. The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the manufacturer of Vimal Elaichi challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration to Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff. The court held that the alleged activities and regulatory action referred to in the notices took place in Maharashtra, making courts in the state the appropriate forum to challenge the proceedings.
A bench headed by Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma said the petitioner had failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The petition was therefore held to be non-maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The court, however, did not express any opinion on the merits of the challenge to the notices.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
The court noted that the show-cause notices had been issued by the Mumbai office of the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration to the brand ambassadors engaged by the petitioner. The actors reside in Mumbai, and the notices concerned alleged activities and statutory violations in Maharashtra.
In its petition, the company said it engages prominent film actors to promote a cardamom product under its Vimal brand. According to the company, agreements with the actors contain provisions requiring their advertisements to comply with applicable laws.
The company claimed that the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration had treated advertisements for Vimal Elaichi as alleged surrogate advertisements for Vimal Pan Masala. According to the petition, the latter is a banned chewable product in the state.
The notices issued to the three actors sought documents to establish that the product being promoted by them was different from the product banned in Maharashtra. The notices also directed that the promotional campaign be stopped and related material available on digital platforms be removed.
The company argued before the court that the notices issued on August 11 were addressed only to the brand ambassadors and not to the company, even though the company could face the financial consequences of any action taken by the food regulator. It also argued that its business operations were based in Delhi and that certain aspects of its engagement with the brand ambassadors were connected to Delhi.
The High Court, however, rejected these arguments as insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction. The court said that the mere fact that the petitioner operates its business from Delhi or has engaged brand ambassadors from Delhi cannot, by itself, confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court when the impugned notices were issued in Maharashtra and were not addressed to the petitioner.
The court also noted that the petitioner had impleaded the concerned Union ministry and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, both located in Delhi, as parties to the petition. However, no specific relief had been sought against either authority, nor had any order or direction issued by them been challenged.
The bench further observed that factors such as the petitioner’s registered office being located in Delhi, the place from which payments were made, or the location of some part of the advertising campaign could not be selectively relied upon to create jurisdiction.
The court said the appropriate forum must be determined on the basis of the actual action and the location of the dispute rather than isolated connections with a particular jurisdiction.
The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It made it clear that the order did not examine the merits of the allegations contained in the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration’s notices or the company’s challenge to them. Any pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
