Delhi High Court Rejects Vimal Elaichi's Plea Against FDA Notices to Shah Rukh Khan and Others

The Delhi High Court has ruled against the makers of Vimal Elaichi, dismissing their plea to quash show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA to their celebrity endorsers. The court stated that the matter should be addressed in Maharashtra, emphasizing the need for appropriate jurisdiction. The FDA's notices allege that the advertisements misrepresent the product and could be seen as promoting a banned item. The ruling highlights the complexities of celebrity endorsements in advertising and regulatory compliance.

By Narendra Chaudhary Sep 14, 2026, 19:42 IST

Court Dismisses Petition Over FDA Notices

On Monday, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition from the creators of Vimal Elaichi, who sought to invalidate show-cause notices issued to their celebrity endorsers Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff by the Maharashtra FDA. These notices were related to alleged misleading advertising practices.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that the petition lacked jurisdiction and indicated that the courts in Maharashtra would be a more suitable venue for addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner, in line with the principle of forum conveniens.

The petitioner, PB Agro LLP, argued that it employs well-known actors to promote its cardamom product under the 'Vimal' brand and claimed that their advertising efforts comply with all relevant laws.

The Maharashtra FDA had issued notices asserting that the advertisements for Vimal Elaichi could be interpreted as surrogate marketing for Vimal Pan Masala, a product that is prohibited in Maharashtra.

The regulatory body requested that the actors involved in the Vimal Elaichi promotions provide evidence that the product is distinct from the banned pan masala items.

Additionally, the FDA called for a suspension of the promotional activities and the removal of associated content from online platforms.

The petitioner's legal representative contended that the FDA's notice, dated August 11, was directed solely at the actors and not at the company itself, despite the potential harm to the company from any regulatory actions.

The counsel also noted that the petitioner had not been given a chance to present its case.