Delhi HC dismisses Vimal Elaichi plea over Maharashtra FDA notices to SRK, Devgn
Synopsis
The Delhi High Court has shut down PB Agro's attempt to challenge Maharashtra FDA's show-cause notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff over alleged Vimal pan masala surrogate advertising — ruling it has no territorial jurisdiction. The case now points squarely to the Bombay High Court, and signals that regulatory pressure on celebrity brand endorsers of pan masala products is unlikely to ease.
Key Takeaways
The Delhi High Court dismissed PB Agro's petition on 15 September 2026 , citing lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that Maharashtra is the appropriate forum for the dispute.
Show-cause notices were issued by the Maharashtra FDA to actors Shah Rukh Khan , Ajay Devgn , and Tiger Shroff over alleged surrogate promotion of Vimal pan masala .
The court found PB Agro failed to prove any substantial part of the cause of action arose in Delhi .
The Centre and the CCPA had opposed the petition, arguing the company should have approached the Bombay High Court .
The Delhi High Court on 15 September 2026 dismissed a petition filed by PB Agro, the company behind Vimal Elaichi, which had sought to challenge show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff over an alleged surrogate advertisement for Vimal pan masala. The court ruled that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Court's Jurisdictional Ruling
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute did not fall within the Delhi High Court's territorial jurisdiction. The court observed that Maharashtra was the more appropriate forum for addressing grievances arising from notices issued by the state's food and drug authority.
The court further ruled that PB Agro had failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. This finding effectively shut the door on the company's attempt to contest the notices before a Delhi forum.
What PB Agro Had Argued
PB Agro contended that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because the company is headquartered in Delhi, the advertising campaign was allegedly conceptualised, prepared, and managed from the national capital, and payments to brand ambassadors were made from Delhi. The company also argued that it stood to suffer irreparable harm from any action concerning the advertisement, even though the show-cause notices were addressed to the actors — not to the company itself.
The court, however, rejected each of these grounds. It noted that the Maharashtra FDA had not issued the notices to PB Agro, had not asked the company to file a response, remove any advertisement, produce documents, or appear before the authority.
Centre and CCPA's Position
The Centre and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) opposed the petition's maintainability before the Delhi High Court, arguing that PB Agro should have approached the Bombay High Court since the impugned action was taken by the Maharashtra FDA. The CCPA submitted that while it was independently examining the issue, it had no objection to the Maharashtra FDA having issued the notices.
Background: Surrogate Advertising Dispute
The dispute centres on show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff in connection with alleged surrogate promotion of Vimal pan masala. The three actors had featured in advertisements for Vimal Elaichi, a product marketed by PB Agro. Surrogate advertising — the practice of promoting a banned or restricted product under the guise of an associated permissible brand — is prohibited under Indian consumer protection and food safety regulations.
The Delhi High Court had reserved its verdict on the jurisdictional question after hearing arguments on Monday, before delivering its dismissal order. With the Delhi HC route now closed, the company's legal options are effectively redirected to Maharashtra, where the original regulatory action originated.
Point of View
And the Delhi HC's refusal to grant PB Agro a jurisdictional escape hatch reinforces its potency. The CCPA's parallel examination signals that scrutiny is coming from multiple directions at once. If A-list stars face personal regulatory consequences for endorsing products linked to pan masala, it could fundamentally reshape how brands in this category structure their celebrity contracts and campaign planning.
NationPress
15 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Delhi High Court dismiss PB Agro's petition?
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition because it found it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the matter. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that Maharashtra is the appropriate forum since the show-cause notices were issued by the Maharashtra FDA, and PB Agro could not establish that any substantial part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.
Who received the show-cause notices from the Maharashtra FDA?
The Maharashtra FDA issued show-cause notices to Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. The notices relate to their alleged involvement in surrogate advertising for Vimal pan masala through advertisements featuring the Vimal Elaichi brand.
What is surrogate advertising and why is it a concern here?
Surrogate advertising is the practice of promoting a restricted or banned product — such as pan masala — under the name of a permissible associated brand. Indian regulations prohibit this practice. Authorities allege that the Vimal Elaichi advertisements featuring the three actors effectively promoted Vimal pan masala.
What options does PB Agro have after this ruling?
With the Delhi High Court ruling out its jurisdiction, PB Agro's legal recourse now effectively lies with the Bombay High Court, the appropriate forum given that the Maharashtra FDA issued the underlying notices. The company could also engage directly with the Maharashtra FDA's process.
What is the CCPA's role in this case?
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) confirmed it was independently examining the surrogate advertising issue. It supported the view that the Delhi High Court was not the right forum, and said it had no objection to the Maharashtra FDA having issued notices to the actors.
