{
  "id": 7335830,
  "title": "HC rejects Vimal's plea against notices to actors",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/14/hc-rejects-vimals-plea-against-notices-to-actors",
  "topic": "business",
  "section": "Business",
  "published": "2026-09-14T14:10:35.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Economic Times",
    "slug": "the-economic-times",
    "url": "https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/vimal-elaichi-case-delhi-hc-rejects-makers-plea-against-fda-notices-to-shah-rukh-khan-ajay-devgn-tiger-shroff/articleshow/134242593.cms"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "On Monday, the Delhi High Court rejected a plea from PB Agro LLP, the producers of Vimal Elaichi, seeking to invalidate show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that the petition lacked territorial jurisdiction, urging the petitioner to pursue their grievances in Maharashtra courts as per the \"forum conveniens\" principle.\n\nAccording to the petition, PB Agro LLP employs popular actors to endorse its cardamom product, Vimal. The company stated that endorsement agreements with the actors stipulate that the advertising campaign must adhere to applicable laws. However, the Maharashtra FDA claimed that advertisements promoting Vimal Elaichi amounted to indirect promotion of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product that is prohibited in Maharashtra.\n\nThe FDA directed the actors involved in the Vimal Elaichi advertisements to submit documents proving that the cardamom product is distinct from the banned pan masala products. Additionally, the regulator ordered the suspension of the promotional campaign and the removal of related advertising materials from digital platforms.\n\nPB Agro LLP contested the regulatory action before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the August 11 notice was directed solely at the actors and not at the company itself. Their legal team contended that PB Agro would be the party to face irreparable harm if any action was taken by the Maharashtra regulator. Furthermore, they claimed that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to present its case before the notice was issued.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}