1 hr ago
Delhi High Court Rejects Vimal Elaichi Plea Over Actor Notices
PB Agro LLP makes and promotes Vimal Elaichi with help from film actors.
Maharashtra’s food regulator sent notices to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger.
The regulator said the advertisements might really be promoting Vimal Pan Masala, which is banned in Maharashtra.
The company asked the Delhi High Court to cancel the notices.
The court said Delhi was not the right place to hear the case.
It said the notices came from Maharashtra and concerned alleged actions there.
The company’s Delhi office and advertising arrangements were not enough to give the Delhi court authority.
The court did not decide whether the advertisements broke the law.
The company can raise its complaints in the appropriate Maharashtra forum.
The Delhi High Court dismissed PB Agro LLP’s plea challenging show-cause notices issued to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger.
The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration alleged that Vimal Elaichi advertisements were surrogate promotions for Vimal Pan Masala.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma ruled that Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction because the notices concerned alleged violations in Maharashtra.
The court said operating from Delhi or engaging brand ambassadors from Delhi did not establish jurisdiction.
The dismissal did not address the merits of PB Agro LLP’s challenge, leaving the company to pursue its grievances in Maharashtra.
- Who
- PB Agro LLP, Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger, the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration, and the Delhi High Court.
- What
- The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging show-cause notices issued to three actors over Vimal Elaichi advertisements.
- Where
- The case was heard in Delhi, while the challenged notices were issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration in Mumbai concerning alleged violations in Maharashtra.
- When
- The ruling was issued on Monday; the notices referenced in the petition were sent on 11 August.
- Why
- The court found that Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction and said Maharashtra was the appropriate forum.
PB Agro LLP’s Position
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning
Appropriate party and jurisdiction
PB Agro LLP’s Position
PB Agro LLP argued that the company, rather than only the actors, would suffer if action followed from the notices, and that its business and advertising arrangements were connected to Delhi.
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning
The court held that the notices were issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration to Mumbai-based brand ambassadors concerning alleged violations in Maharashtra; Delhi connections alone did not establish jurisdiction.
Nature of the advertisements
PB Agro LLP’s Position
The company said it promoted a distinct cardamom product and had agreements requiring the actors’ commercials to comply with applicable laws.
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning
The court did not rule on whether the Vimal Elaichi advertisements were surrogate promotions for Vimal Pan Masala, leaving that merits question unresolved.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- PB Agro LLP, the owner of the Vimal Elaichi brand
- Respondents’ action
- The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration issued show-cause notices to three brand ambassadors.
- Regulator’s allegation
- The Vimal Elaichi advertisements were surrogate advertisements for Vimal Pan Masala.
- Requested response
- The actors were asked to provide documents showing that the endorsed product differed from the banned product.
- Additional demands
- The notices called for the campaign to stop and related digital material to be removed.
- Court’s ruling
- The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
- Merits
- The court expressed no opinion on whether PB Agro LLP’s legal challenge was valid.
Quotes
Delhi High Court
The court ruling issued by Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma
“The factum of petitioner operating its business from Delhi or engaging brand ambassadors from Delhi, especially when the impugned notice has not been issued to the petitioner herein, cannot by themselves confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court, in light of the judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.”
livemint.com
“The petition is therefore dismissed on this ground, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's challenge. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.”
livemint.com
Sources
Related news
Vimal Elaichi Makers Challenge Maharashtra FDA Notices To Three Actors
Maharashtra FDA Issues Notices to Bollywood Stars Over Vimal Ad
Maharashtra FDA Says Actors Responsible, Awaits Responses Over Surrogate Advertisement
Khan, Devgn, Shroff told to stop Vimal ads by regulator
Mukesh Khanna Urges Apologies Over Vimal Elaichi Advertisement
Experts Urge India to Require Warnings for Single Nutrients
Doctors Warn Consumers About Misleading Food Labels and Tampering
India Proposes Front-Pack Warnings for High Sugar, Fat, Salt
Telangana Bans Artificial Paneer Sold as Dairy Paneer
