P B Agro LLP vs Union of India (2026): Delhi High Court on Territorial Jurisdiction, Article 226 and the VIMAL Elaichi FDA Notice to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff
On September 14, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by P.B. Agro LLP, the master licensee of the VIMAL Elaichi brand, challenging a show cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Mumbai to its three brand ambassadors, Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff. Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, since the entire cause of action had arisen in Maharashtra. This judgment is a clean, well-reasoned illustration of how Indian courts test territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and the doctrine of forum conveniens.
Case Snapshot
Case Title: P B Agro LLP v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12664/2026 & CM APPL. 58858/2026
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Bench: Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
CNR No.: DLHC010410092026
Reserved on: September 7, 2026
Pronounced on: September 14, 2026
Background: What Was the VIMAL Elaichi Advertising Dispute About?
P.B. Agro LLP describes itself as the master licensee for the manufacture and sale of elaichi (cardamom) and tobacco-free pan masala under the brand "VIMAL." To promote its cardamom product, the company engages well-known actors as brand ambassadors under formal endorsement agreements, in which it undertakes that its advertising campaigns will comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The FDA's Show Cause Notice to Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff
The petitioner's grievance arose when it learnt, through media reports, that the FDA, Mumbai (acting through the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Greater Mumbai Division) had issued a show cause notice dated August 11, 2026 to its three brand ambassadors, Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff. The notice invoked Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which deals with restrictions on advertisements and unfair trade practices, and referred to the prohibition on pan masala in Maharashtra under Section 30(2)(a) of the Act. It required the brand ambassadors to take down the advertisement and produce documentary proof that VIMAL Elaichi was an independent product genuinely available for sale in the market. No notice was issued to the petitioner company itself, and it was not given any hearing.
The Petitioner's Case for Delhi High Court Jurisdiction
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under both limbs of Article 226 of the Constitution:
Article 226(1): FSSAI, the apex statutory authority under the FSS Act, and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, are both situated in Delhi, and FDA Mumbai functions under FSSAI's overall supervision.
Article 226(2): The petitioner carries on business only from Delhi, the advertising campaign was managed and paid for from Delhi, and the resulting commercial injury was suffered in Delhi.
CCPA proceedings: The Central Consumer Protection Authority, also based in Delhi, had already issued its own show cause notice to the petitioner on the related surrogate advertising issue.
What the Respondents Argued
The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, FSSAI and CCPA, argued that the petition was non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. The impugned notice bore the letterhead of the Government of Maharashtra, was issued by an authority functioning under the State Government, and concerned three brand ambassadors who were all residents of Mumbai and had not themselves challenged the notice. The State of Maharashtra, the authority actually responsible for the notice, was not even a party before the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court's Analysis on Territorial Jurisdiction
The Court framed the central issue as whether it could exercise writ jurisdiction merely because the petitioner was based in Delhi and some of the respondents (the Ministry, FSSAI and CCPA) were located there, when the impugned action itself originated in Maharashtra. The Court held that:
Nothing on record showed that FSSAI had directed FDA Mumbai to issue the notice; the action was independently taken by the State authority under its own statutory powers.
The mere impleadment of Delhi-based authorities, without any specific relief sought against them or any decision of theirs under challenge, could not manufacture jurisdiction that otherwise did not exist.
The petitioner's own pleadings, that VIMAL pan masala is not manufactured or sold in Maharashtra and that the FDA had misunderstood the product, actually located the real dispute in Maharashtra, not Delhi.
The petitioner had not itself been served any notice or asked to do anything; its claimed injury was, at this stage, only an apprehension about consequences flowing to its brand ambassadors in Mumbai.
Key Precedents the Court Relied On
Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335 — not every pleaded fact constitutes part of the cause of action; only material, essential or integral facts do.
ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711 — learning of an action through the media, or receiving communications, at a place does not by itself confer jurisdiction there.
Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises, (1994) 4 SCC 710 — a respondent's location alone cannot found jurisdiction where the underlying dispute arose elsewhere.
State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217 — the petitioner's own location is not a relevant jurisdictional fact.
Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 567 — the place where the competent authority processed the matter determines jurisdiction, not where the petitioner suffered commercial consequences.
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254 and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions, (2023) 7 SCC 791 — even a small part of the cause of action arising within a court's territory does not compel that court to hear the case; forum conveniens can still apply.
Forum Conveniens: The Second, Independent Ground
Even assuming a slender or incidental part of the cause of action could be traced to Delhi, the Court held that this was not an appropriate case for exercising discretionary jurisdiction. The entire substantive dispute, the alleged prohibited activity, the regulatory action, the issuing authority and the noticees, was rooted in Maharashtra, where the brand ambassadors themselves had chosen not to litigate.
"A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said decision lies elsewhere, effectively attempts to make this High Court a mini-pan-India superior court exercising jurisdiction over all events which take place throughout this Country."
The Court's Final Ruling
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition as non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, and held that courts in Maharashtra were the more appropriate forum. Importantly, the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the challenge to the show cause notice, leaving P.B. Agro LLP free to pursue its remedies before the courts in Maharashtra or before the authority that issued the notice.
Why This Judgment Matters for Law Students and Lawyers
For law students and practising lawyers, this judgment is a practical illustration of how Indian courts test territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. It shows:
How to distinguish the material facts that genuinely form the "cause of action" from incidental or collateral facts that a petition merely pleads.
Why impleading a Delhi-based apex or nodal authority does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.
How the doctrine of forum conveniens operates as an independent, discretionary check even when a technical foothold for jurisdiction exists.
How careful, fact-by-fact drafting of writ petitions, and equally, of replies contesting maintainability, can decide a case at the threshold, before the merits are ever examined.
These are exactly the skills that separate a competent litigator from an exceptional one, and they are built through structured, hands-on practice, not by chance.
Build This Expertise With ILW's Advanced Legal Drafting 6.0 Course
Into Legal World's Advanced Legal Drafting 6.0 course is built for exactly this kind of real-world litigation skill-building. It trains law students and young lawyers to draft writ petitions, replies on maintainability, and pleadings that correctly plead, or correctly contest, territorial jurisdiction, cause of action and forum conveniens, the very issues that decided this case. Anyone looking to build a serious litigation career, and not just a theoretical understanding of constitutional law, will find the course's practical drafting modules directly useful.
Read the Full Judgment
Download the full text of the Delhi High Court's judgment in P B Agro LLP v. Union of India and Ors. (PDF): https://2fda84ca-d13f-4d59-88d4-e8e1eb0e85f0.usrfiles.com/ugd/2f1ee0_f8d701681fda4d4aa4a5d6cad54ee8a9.pdf
Stay Updated
For more such case analyses and legal career updates, join ILW's WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaAbhJDKLaHf6D8G3w1B
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. Why did the Delhi High Court dismiss P.B. Agro LLP's petition against the FDA notice on VIMAL Elaichi?
The show cause notice was issued by the FDA, Mumbai to brand ambassadors resident in Mumbai, over alleged conduct in Maharashtra. The Court held that no substantial part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, so it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 226.
Q2. Does FSSAI's head office being in Delhi automatically give the Delhi High Court jurisdiction over any State FDA notice?
No. The Court held that FSSAI's location in Delhi cannot confer jurisdiction unless FSSAI itself directed or decided the impugned action. Otherwise, every State-level food safety notice across India could be challenged in Delhi, making Article 226's territorial limits meaningless.
Q3. What is the doctrine of forum conveniens, and how did the Court use it in this case?
Forum conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction, even where a small part of the cause of action technically arises within its territory, if another court is the more appropriate forum for the dispute. The Delhi High Court applied it as an independent ground, holding that courts in Maharashtra were the proper forum.
Q4. Who were the brand ambassadors named in the FDA's show cause notice to VIMAL Elaichi?
The notice dated August 11, 2026 was issued to three brand ambassadors of VIMAL Elaichi, Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff, all residents of Mumbai, none of whom approached the Delhi High Court themselves.
Q5. Did the Delhi High Court rule on whether the FDA's notice against VIMAL Elaichi was legally valid?
No. The Court dismissed the petition purely on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens, and expressly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the challenge to the show cause notice.
Keywords: Delhi High Court territorial jurisdiction, Article 226 writ petition, VIMAL Elaichi FDA notice, forum conveniens India, P B Agro LLP vs Union of India, FSSAI territorial jurisdiction case, Shah Rukh Khan Ajay Devgn Tiger Shroff FDA notice, cause of action Article 226, show cause notice jurisdiction, Advanced Legal Drafting course, writ petition drafting for law students
Comments