Delhi HC Dismisses Vimal Elaichi Maker’s Plea Against Maharashtra FDA Notice [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by P.B. Agro LLP, the master licensee for manufacture and sale of Elaichi and tobacco-free pan masala under the brand 'VIMAL', challenging a show cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration, Mumbai, to the brand's endorsers, holding that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.

Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of a show cause notice dated 11.08.2026 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Food and Drug Administration, Greater Mumbai Division, to three brand ambassadors engaged by the petitioner for its advertising campaign, as well as a direction restraining coercive action against the petitioner and its brand ambassadors for alleged non-compliance with the notice.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petition was maintainable under both Article 226(1) and 226(2) of the Constitution, since FSSAI, the apex authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, its administrative ministry, were situated in Delhi, and since the petitioner carried on business, managed its advertising campaign, and made payments to its brand ambassadors from Delhi. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Bakshish Ahmad v. Union of India and Ors. to contend that the notice, though issued by FDA, Mumbai, was effectively directed against the petitioner, and on Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India to submit that a substantial part of the cause of action, and consequently the entire injury, had arisen in Delhi. It was further submitted that the Central Consumer Protection Authority, also situated in Delhi, was already seized of related proceedings concerning surrogate advertising, and that the impugned notice was in any event without jurisdiction.

Conversely, the learned CGSC appearing for the Union of India and CCPA, along with counsel for FSSAI, argued that the petition was non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted that the impugned notice had been issued exclusively by the FDA, Mumbai, under the Government of Maharashtra, bore the heading of that Government, and had been addressed only to three brand ambassadors who were all residents of Mumbai and had not themselves challenged the notice. It was contended that the mere location of the petitioner's office, or of FSSAI and the Ministry, in Delhi could not confer jurisdiction on this Court when the State of Maharashtra, the principal authority responsible for the notice, was not even a party to the proceedings.

The facts, as recorded by the court, show that the impugned notice had been issued to the petitioner's three brand ambassadors, all residents of Mumbai, invoking provisions of the FSS Act concerning restrictions on advertisements and the prohibition of pan masala in Maharashtra, and that no notice, order or direction had been issued to the petitioner itself, nor had FSSAI directed FDA, Mumbai to initiate any such action.

Examining the cause of action, the court held that facts such as the petitioner's registered office, the place from which payments were made, or the place from which the advertising campaign was managed, were merely incidental and had no direct bearing on the validity of the impugned notice. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd., Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd., the court reiterated that not every fact pleaded constitutes a part of the cause of action, and that the mere situs of an apex statutory body cannot, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction in respect of an independent action taken by a subordinate or State authority elsewhere. The court also distinguished the decision in Bakshish Ahmad, relied upon by the petitioner, on the ground that it turned on a distinct statutory scheme under the Border Security Force Act requiring reporting to the Director General in Delhi, which had no parallel in the present case.

The court held that the impugned notice had been issued by, and addressed to persons in, the State of Maharashtra, concerning alleged activities in that State, and that the petitioner's own pleadings seeking to show that its pan masala was neither manufactured nor sold in Maharashtra confirmed that the real controversy was located there. Rejecting the plea that impleading the Ministry, FSSAI and CCPA could confer jurisdiction, the court observed that "the present petition is, accordingly, held to be non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction."

The court further held that, even if a slender part of the cause of action could be said to arise in Delhi, the doctrine of forum conveniens would still point to Maharashtra as the appropriate forum, since the entire cause of action had arisen there and the actual noticees, being residents of Mumbai, had themselves chosen not to challenge the notice.

Holding that the petitioner had failed to establish any substantial or material part of the cause of action within its territorial jurisdiction, and that courts in Maharashtra were the more appropriate and convenient forum, the court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non-maintainability, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the show cause notice.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Dr. Seema Jain, Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant, Ms. Shivani G. Mahant, Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Mr. Harish C. Suri, Ms. Radhika Yadav, Mr. Shreedhar Kale and Mr. Vignesh Ramanathan, Advocates.

For Respondent Nos. 1 and 4: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC, Mr. Vinay Koushik, GP, Mr. Vinayak Aren and Ms. Aishwarya Nigam, Advocates.

For Respondent No. 2/FSSAI: Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary and Mr. Jay Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondent No. 4: Mr. Shubham Gill, Officer.

Case Title: P B Agro LLP vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 12664/2026 & CM APPL. 58858/2026

[Read Judgment]