Vimal Elaichi case: Delhi HC rejects makers' plea against FDA notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn & Tiger Shroff

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by PB Agro LLP, the makers of Vimal Elaichi, seeking to quash show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over alleged misrepresentation of the product in advertisements.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the petition was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. The court said Maharashtra courts would be the more appropriate and convenient forum for the petitioner to raise its grievances concerning the notices, in accordance with the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Maharashtra FDA issued notices to Vimal Elaichi brand ambassadors

According to the plea, PB Agro LLP engages reputed actors to promote its cardamom product under the brand name 'Vimal'. The company said its endorsement agreements with the actors require the advertising campaign to comply with applicable laws.


The Maharashtra FDA, however, issued regulatory notices alleging that advertisements for Vimal Elaichi amounted to surrogate promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product banned in Maharashtra.

What did the Maharashtra FDA ask Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff to do?

The FDA directed the actors featured in the Vimal Elaichi advertisements to provide documents establishing that the cardamom product is different from the banned pan masala products.

The regulator also called for the promotional campaign to be stopped and related advertising material to be withdrawn from digital platforms.

What did Vimal Elaichi makers argue before Delhi High Court?

PB Agro LLP challenged the regulatory action before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the August 11 notice had been sent only to the actors and not to the company itself.

The company's counsel argued that PB Agro would be the party to suffer irreparable harm from any action taken by the Maharashtra regulator. The petitioner also claimed that it had not been given an opportunity to present its case before the notice was issued.


Inputs from PTI