Delhi High Court: In a challenge to a show-cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Mumbai, to the brand ambassadors of the VIMAL Elaichi advertising campaign, namely, Ajay Devgn, Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff, for alleged misrepresentation of the product in their advertisement, a Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. held that the mere fact that a petitioner is based in Delhi, or that certain authorities impleaded in the writ petition are situated in Delhi, does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Delhi High Court where the impugned action has been independently initiated by a State authority in another State and no substantial part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The Court also held that courts in the State where the impugned action originated would be the more appropriate and convenient forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens.
Background
P.B. Agro LLP, the master licensee for manufacture and sale of Elaichi and pan masala not containing tobacco under the brand name “VIMAL”, approached the High Court challenging a show-cause notice dated 11 August 2026 issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Mumbai, to three brand ambassadors associated with its VIMAL Elaichi advertising campaign. The petitioner contended that the notice effectively affected its business and advertising activities, which were managed from Delhi. It also argued that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), both situated in Delhi, were concerned with the matter and that a part of the cause of action had consequently arisen within Delhi.
The respondents opposed the maintainability of the petition, contending that the impugned notice had been independently issued by the FDA, Mumbai, under the statutory powers of the Maharashtra authorities. They submitted that the petitioner’s registered office or business activities in Delhi could not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Delhi High Court when the notice was issued in Maharashtra to persons residing there.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the impugned show-cause notice had been issued by the FDA, Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra, to three brand ambassadors residing in Mumbai. There was no material to establish that FSSAI, which is the apex statutory authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, had directed the FDA, Mumbai, to issue the notice or initiate the impugned action. Therefore, the mere fact that FSSAI was situated in Delhi could not alter the source or character of the impugned action.
The Court further observed that no show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner itself, nor had any direction been issued to it to remove advertisements, produce documents or discontinue any activity. The principal relief sought by the petitioner was against the notice issued by the FDA, Mumbai. The mere impleadment of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, FSSAI or CCPA, without any specific relief being sought against them or any action attributable to them being challenged, could not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Delhi High Court.
Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335, ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711 Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 567, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254 and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, (2023) 7 SCC 791, the Court reiterated that every fact pleaded by a petitioner does not constitute part of the cause of action. Only facts having a material, essential or integral nexus with the dispute can confer territorial jurisdiction.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s contention that its business being located in Delhi and the advertising campaign being conceived, managed or paid for from Delhi were sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The Court held that the real dispute concerned the legality of an action taken by the FDA, Mumbai, in relation to alleged activities in Maharashtra. Further, the proceedings before the CCPA in Delhi were separate proceedings arising from independent action and did not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Delhi High Court over the impugned notice issued by the Maharashtra authority.
The Court additionally invoked the doctrine of forum conveniens, observing that the entire cause of action substantially arose in Maharashtra, the notice was issued by a Maharashtra authority and the persons to whom it was addressed were residents of Maharashtra. Therefore, courts in Maharashtra were the natural and convenient forum for adjudicating the petitioner’s grievances.
The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The writ petition was accordingly held to be non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and was dismissed on that ground. The Court also held that courts in Maharashtra were the more appropriate and convenient forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s challenge to the show-cause notice.
[P.B. Agro LLP v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 12664/2026, decided on 14-9-26]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate, 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.