Case at a Glance
The Food and Drug Administration, Greater Mumbai, issued a show cause notice on 11 August 2026 to three Mumbai-based actors who endorse the ‘VIMAL’ elaichi campaign, invoking the Food Safety and Standards Act and Maharashtra’s pan masala prohibition and asking them to take the advertisements down. The Delhi-based master licensee of the brand challenged the notice in the Delhi High Court, pointing to the presence of the Health Ministry, FSSAI and the Central Consumer Protection Authority in Delhi. The Court dismissed the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the notice was issued independently by a Maharashtra authority to Maharashtra residents, and that the petitioner’s Delhi base and campaign management were not part of the cause of action. It expressed no opinion on the merits.
P.B. Agro LLP, the master licensee for the ‘VIMAL’ brand of elaichi and tobacco-free pan masala, engaged well-known actors as brand ambassadors for its VIMAL elaichi campaign. On 11.08.2026 the Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA, Greater Mumbai Division, issued a show cause notice to three brand ambassadors, all residents of Mumbai. According to the petitioner, the notice invoked Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (restrictions on advertisement and unfair trade practices) and the Maharashtra prohibition on pan masala under Section 30(2)(a), directed the ambassadors to take down the advertisements, and sought documents showing that VIMAL Elaichi is an independent product on sale. The notice was not addressed to the petitioner, which learnt of it through the media.
The petitioner also stated that the Central Consumer Protection Authority had separately issued it a show cause notice on the same issue under the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements, 2022, in proceedings stemming from an Allahabad High Court PIL on surrogate and pan masala advertisements. It filed a writ petition in Delhi seeking to quash the FDA Mumbai notice and to restrain coercive action against itself and its brand ambassadors. The respondents objected that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the Delhi High Court entertain a writ against a show cause notice issued by a Maharashtra food safety authority to Mumbai residents, merely because the brand owner is based in Delhi and central bodies such as FSSAI and the CCPA sit in Delhi?
Where the cause of action really arose
Under Article 226(1), the Court found that the notice was issued independently by FDA Mumbai, with no material showing that FSSAI or any Delhi authority had directed it; FSSAI’s location “cannot alter the source or character of the show cause notice”. The reliefs were in substance directed at FDA Mumbai’s notice, and impleading the Health Ministry and FSSAI without seeking specific relief against them could not confer jurisdiction. Bakshish Ahmad v. Union of India, (2026) 06 SC CK 0538 was distinguished as a BSF service case in which the Union and the BSF Director General in Delhi were necessary parties.
Under Article 226(2), relying on Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 03 SC CK 0065, Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 06 SC CK 0001 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 04 SC CK 0006, the Court held that a fact must form a material part of the cause of action. The petitioner’s Delhi base, its management of the campaign and its payments from Delhi were not such facts. The alleged injury was only apprehension, since this was a show cause notice with no order passed and nothing required of the petitioner. Its own case, that VIMAL pan masala is not made or sold in Maharashtra and that FDA Mumbai had misread the product, made the dispute a Maharashtra one, and the pending CCPA proceedings could not confer jurisdiction over a separate State notice. Accepting the plea would let any company challenge any State FDA notice in Delhi and, quoting Indure Private Limited v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2026) 02 DEL CK 1961, “make this High Court a mini-pan-India superior court”. Even if a slender part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, the Court would have declined on forum conveniens, as the Maharashtra courts are “the natural and convenient forum”.
What the Court Actually Held
- No substantial or material part of the cause of action arose within Delhi; the petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.
- The location of FSSAI, the Health Ministry or the CCPA in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction where the impugned notice was independently issued by a State authority in Maharashtra.
- A petitioner’s registered base, internal business decisions and payments made from Delhi are not, by themselves, part of the cause of action.
- On forum conveniens, the courts in Maharashtra are the appropriate forum; the petition is dismissed without any opinion on the merits.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Celebrity endorsements of pan masala and elaichi brands are under scrutiny from both State food regulators and the CCPA; this ruling tells brand owners where such notices must be challenged.
- It reinforces the limits of Article 226(2): parking central authorities as respondents does not bring a State-level dispute to the Delhi High Court.
- It applies the forum conveniens principle to stop forum shopping in regulatory challenges.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Brand Owners and Advertisers
- A notice issued by a State FDA to persons in that State will ordinarily have to be challenged before that State’s High Court.
- A show cause notice is usually answered first; the Court treated the harm as only apprehended.
- Separate CCPA proceedings in Delhi do not pull a State notice into Delhi’s jurisdiction.
For Counsel
- Plead specific relief against any Delhi-based respondent you rely on for jurisdiction; nominal impleadment does not suffice.
- Identify facts that form an integral part of the cause of action, as required by Alchemist and Kusum Ingots.
- Expect a forum conveniens objection even where a slender cause of action exists.
Key Takeaways
- The Delhi High Court declined jurisdiction over the FDA Mumbai notice on VIMAL elaichi advertisements.
- Central bodies’ presence in Delhi does not by itself confer writ jurisdiction.
- Business management from Delhi is not part of the cause of action.
- The merits of the surrogate-advertising allegation remain undecided.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Delhi High Court decide whether the VIMAL elaichi ads were surrogate advertisements?
No. The petition was dismissed only for want of territorial jurisdiction, and the Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits.
Why could the company not challenge the notice in Delhi?
Because the notice was issued by FDA Mumbai, a Maharashtra authority, to three Mumbai residents. The Court held that the company’s Delhi base, campaign management and payments were not a material part of the cause of action, and that Maharashtra courts were the convenient forum.
Does the presence of FSSAI or CCPA in Delhi help a petitioner?
Not in this case. The Court held FSSAI’s location could not alter the source or character of a notice issued independently by a State authority, and pending CCPA proceedings could not confer jurisdiction over that separate notice.
Conclusion
The judgment is about the door, not the room: the dispute over celebrity-endorsed elaichi advertisements will have to be fought where the notice was issued. In refusing to entertain it, the Court guarded against Article 226 being used to bring regulatory disputes from across the country to Delhi.
Practical takeaway: Before filing a writ against a State regulator’s notice in Delhi, test whether any integral part of the cause of action truly arose in Delhi and whether real relief is sought against a Delhi respondent; otherwise, go to the High Court of the State concerned.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com