The on Monday dismissed a plea filed by the owners of Vimal Elaichi who had sought to squash show-cause notices that were sent to three major Bollywood stars who appear in commercials as their brand ambassadors, PTI reported.
The actors – , Ajay Devgn, and Tiger were sent these showcause notices by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration, who alleged that they were misrepresenting the products in the advertisements.
However, the petition was held to be non-maintainable by Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, who cited lack of territorial jurisdiction as the reason behind the same.
The judge, citing the the doctrine of forum conveniens, said that not the court in Delhi, but those in Maharashtra are the appropriate forum for the petition to raise their grievances about the impugned notice, PTI reported.
“The petition is therefore dismissed on this ground, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s challenge. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of,” the court said in its order.
In the petition filed by PB Agro LLP, it says that it engages the services of reputed film actors to promote a particular cardamom product under its ‘Vimal’ brand, and that the agreement between the actors and the company assures that their commercials are in compliance with applicable laws.
The petition states that the notices sent by the Maharashtra FDA alleged that the advertisements for Vimal Elaichi were surrogate advertisements of their other product, Vimal Pan Masala, which is a chewable product banned in the state.
The notices sent to these actors had directed them to provide documentation to demonstrate that the product they endorse is different from the one that is banned in the state. The notices also called for the promotional campaign to be halted and that related material on them available on digital platforms be removed.
The petitioner’s counsel told the court that the notice sent on 11 August was only sent to the actors and not to the company although the company alone is going to suffer if any action is taken by the food regulator.
However, the high court said that the petitioner failed to establish that any substantial or material part of action had arisen with the Delhi High Court’s territorial jurisdiction.
“The impugned show-cause notice was issued by the FDA, Mumbai, state of Maharashtra – to the brand ambassadors engaged by the petitioner, who are residents of Mumbai – in relation to alleged activities and alleged statutory violations in Maharashtra.
“Though the petitioner has impleaded the ministry and the FSSAI, which are situated in Delhi, as parties in the writ petition, neither any specific relief is claimed against either of them, nor any direction or order passed by these authorities has been challenged before the court or even placed on record with the writ petition,” it said, as per the PTI report.
The court said that the petitioner operating its business out of Delhi or it having engaged brand ambassadors from Delhi, especially when the notice has not been issued to the petitioner, cannot by themselves confer territorial jurisdiction upon the court.
“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 Court as well as this Court,” the Court observed, as per Bar and Bench.
Justice Sharma stated that the court cannot permit jurisdiction to be created by selectively referring to facts like the petitioner’s registered office, the place from which payments were made, or the location of the advertising campaign.
With PTI input
