Delhi High Court Dismisses Vimal Elaichi's Plea Challenging FDA Notice To Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff
The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected a plea filed by makers of Vimal Elaichi seeking to quash show-cause notices issued to their brand ambassadors, Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, by the Maharashtra FDA for alleged misrepresentation of the product in their advertisement.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the plea filed by P.B. Agro LLP, the master licensee for VIMAL Elaichi and pan masala not containing tobacco, challenging a show cause notice issued to the brand's ambassadors by the Food and Drug Administration, Mumbai.
The Court observed that mere location of the company's business and apex food safety authorities in the national capital could not confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court when the impugned regulatory action originated in Maharashtra.
The impugned notice dated August 11 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA, Greater Mumbai Division, to three brand ambassadors of VIMAL Elaichi, all residents of Mumbai. The
P.B. Agro argued that the petition was maintainable under Articles 226(1) and 226(2) of the Constitution of India as it operated from Delhi, the advertising campaign was managed from the capital, payments to brand ambassadors were made from Delhi and the alleged injury was suffered there.
It also relied on the fact that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) were located in Delhi.
Rejecting the said submissions, the Court held that the source and character of the impugned notice remained an independent action initiated by FDA, Mumbai, under its statutory powers.
“The mere fact that FSSAI is the apex body under the enactment, or that it is situated in Delhi, cannot alter the source or character of the show cause notice impugned in the present petition,” the Court observed.
Justice Sharma further held that the mere impleadment of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or FSSAI, without any specific relief being sought against them or any action attributable to them being challenged, could not create territorial jurisdiction where none otherwise existed.
The Court rejected the company's contention that its Delhi-based operations and commercial injury were sufficient to establish a cause of action in the capital.
“The mere fact that the petitioner is incorporated, carries on business or maintains an office in Delhi cannot mean that every regulatory action taken against its product by an authority in another State becomes amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court,” the judge said.
It held that the central controversy concerned the legality and correctness of an action taken by the FDA Mumbai, in relation to alleged activities in Maharashtra.
It held that, even assuming some remote or incidental part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, the doctrine of forum conveniens warranted declining jurisdiction.
“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,” the Court said.
It added: “The present petition is, accordingly, held to be non- maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. In addition, the Court also finds that courts in Maharashtra are the more appropriate and convenient forum for the petitioner to raise its grievances concerning the impugned notice, as per doctrine of forum conveniens.”
Title: P B AGRO LLP v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS