New Delhi [India], September 13 : The Delhi High Court is scheduled to pass its order on September 14 on whether it has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed by PB Agro LLP, makers of Vimal Elaichi, challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to celebrity brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had reserved the order after hearing arguments from PB Agro, the Central Government and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.
PB Agro has approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA in connection with advertisements featuring the three Bollywood actors for Vimal Elaichi.
The controversy arose from the Maharashtra FDA’s allegation that the advertisements for Vimal Elaichi amounted to surrogate promotion of “Vimal Pan Masala”, a chewable product banned in Maharashtra.
The state regulator had reportedly asked the actors to submit documents showing that Vimal Elaichi was distinct from banned pan masala products and had also sought stoppage of the promotional campaign and removal of related material from digital platforms.
Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, appearing for PB Agro, argued that the show-cause notice dated August 11, 2026, was issued only to the brand ambassadors and not to the company, despite PB Agro being directly affected by any action against the campaign.
The company also questioned the Maharashtra FDA’s jurisdiction to direct discontinuation of the advertisements. It contended that allegations of surrogate advertising were without basis, claiming that Vimal pan masala had not been manufactured or sold in Maharashtra since 2001.
PB Agro further submitted that pan masala containing tobacco had already been barred nationwide following a Supreme Court ruling in 2013. It also told the Court that the CCPA was independently examining similar allegations but had not issued any direction against the advertisement campaign.
Advocate Rukhmini Bobde, appearing for the Central Government and the CCPA, opposed the maintainability of the petition before the Delhi High Court. She argued that any challenge to a notice issued by the Maharashtra FDA should be brought before the Bombay High Court.
She submitted that the Maharashtra Government, which issued the show-cause notice, was not before the Delhi High Court to defend its action. Bobde also clarified that while the CCPA was conducting separate proceedings concerning similar allegations, it had no objection to the Maharashtra FDA’s notice.
“The government of Maharashtra, which has passed the show-cause notice, is not here to defend its show-cause notice,” the counsel submitted.