The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a petition by PB Agro LLP, the manufacturer of Vimal Elaichi, challenging show-cause notices issued by Maharashtra’s Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that the company had failed to establish that any substantial part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, thereby lacking territorial jurisdiction.

The court emphasized that the notices were issued by the Mumbai-based FDA to the brand ambassadors, who are residents of Mumbai, in connection with alleged statutory violations in Maharashtra. The petition argued that the advertisement could be seen in Delhi as well, and that the FSSAI lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice. However, the court noted that the FSSAI Delhi was not in a position to answer the petition’s claims, and that the company’s business operations in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi court.

The FDA notice, dated August 11, 2026, was issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act), 2006, and related regulations. It alleged that the Vimal brand is “prominently associated with Pan Masala in the market,” and that pan masala products are prohibited in Maharashtra. The FDA instructed the actors to end their involvement in the advertisement immediately, take down promotional material from their social media accounts, and provide due diligence records on their endorsement of the product.

PB Agro LLP claimed 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 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 without allowing the company to be heard.

The court’s ruling aligns with the doctrine of forum conveniens, stating that the petitioner should approach courts in Maharashtra, which would be the more suitable and convenient forum to address its concerns. The petition also claimed the notice was arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

What remains unknown is the full content of the FDA notice and the specific nature of the alleged statutory violations. The court’s decision does not clarify whether the FDA’s allegations are based on actual violations or regulatory interpretation. Additionally, the extent of the company’s compliance with applicable laws and the nature of the endorsement agreements with the actors are not fully disclosed in the evidence provided.