NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Monday rejected a plea filed by PB Agro LLP, makers of Vimal Elaichi, challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to its celebrity brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff.The plea had challenged the Maharashtra FDA’s August 11 notices over allegations that advertisements for Vimal Elaichi amounted to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product banned in Maharashtra.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had reserved the order after hearing arguments on whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.The Centre and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) had opposed the maintainability of the petition, arguing that PB Agro should approach the Bombay High Court as the notices were issued by the Maharashtra government.“The government of Maharashtra, which has passed the show-cause notice, is not here to defend its show-cause notice,” counsel Rukhmini Bobde had submitted.PB Agro, represented by Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, had argued that the notice was issued only to the three actors and not to the company, despite the company being directly affected by any regulatory action against the campaign.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The company had also challenged the Maharashtra FDA’s jurisdiction to direct discontinuation of the advertisements and argued that allegations of surrogate advertising were baseless. It claimed that Vimal Pan Masala had not been manufactured or sold in Maharashtra since 2001.The Maharashtra FDA had asked the actors to furnish documents showing that Vimal Elaichi was distinct from the banned pan masala product and had also sought stoppage of the promotional campaign and removal of related material from digital platforms.PB Agro had further submitted that pan masala containing tobacco was barred nationwide following a 2013 Supreme Court ruling and pointed out that the CCPA was separately examining similar allegations.The court’s decision on territorial jurisdiction determines whether the challenge can proceed before the Delhi High Court or has to be pursued before the appropriate court in Maharashtra.
