The Delhi High Court is set to deliver an order on September 14, 2026, regarding whether it can hear a petition from PB Agro LLP. The company is challenging Maharashtra FDA notices issued to brand ambassadors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff over alleged surrogate advertising. The court's decision will determine the venue for this legal dispute.
The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, is scheduled to issue a ruling on September 14, 2026, concerning its territorial jurisdiction to hear a plea filed by PB Agro LLP. The petitioner is seeking to quash show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prominent film actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff. The upcoming order will establish whether the legal challenge against the regulator can proceed in the capital or if the matter must be moved to the courts in Maharashtra.
The core of the dispute traces back to show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA on August 11, 2026. The regulator alleges that the promotional campaigns for Vimal Elaichi are essentially surrogate advertisements for Vimal Pan Masala, a product category prohibited for sale within Maharashtra. The FDA’s move directed the actors to provide documentation clarifying the nature of the products promoted and requested the immediate removal of certain digital marketing materials.
PB Agro LLP has formally contested these allegations. In its submissions, the company argues that Vimal Pan Masala has not been manufactured or distributed in Maharashtra since 2001. The company maintains that its advertisement agreements are fully compliant with current legal frameworks and that the Vimal Elaichi campaign is distinct from banned product categories. Furthermore, the petitioner has argued that the FDA bypassed the company and issued notices directly to the brand ambassadors, which the firm claims has caused both operational and reputational concerns.
During the hearings, representatives for the central government and the Central Consumer Protection Authority opposed the plea on jurisdictional grounds. Their position is that because the notice originated from a state-level regulatory body in Maharashtra, the appropriate forum for legal review should be the Bombay High Court. The decision on September 14 will settle this procedural deadlock, dictating the next steps for both the regulator and the petitioner.
For investors and observers, this case highlights the increasing regulatory scrutiny on surrogate advertising in the FMCG sector. Such legal challenges carry potential financial and operational risks, including the possibility of regulatory penalties under the Food Safety and Standards Act, which can reach up to ₹10 lakh per violation. Additionally, any adverse legal outcome could force a modification of advertising strategies or lead to prolonged litigation, impacting marketing budgets and brand associations. Market participants will likely monitor the jurisdictional ruling as a key indicator of where the substantive legal battle over these advertising practices will eventually unfold.