The makers of Vimal Elaichi on Monday approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over their endorsement of the product.

The notices relate to allegations that advertisements for Vimal Elaichi amount to surrogate advertising of Vimal Pan Masala, a chewable product that is banned in Maharashtra.

A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reserved its order on the question of whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The petition was filed by PB Agro, which said it engages reputed actors to promote cardamom products under the Vimal brand. The company maintained that its endorsement agreements and advertising campaigns are undertaken in compliance with applicable laws.

According to the company, the Maharashtra FDA issued notices to the actors featured in Vimal Elaichi advertisements, asking them to produce documents showing that Vimal Elaichi is a distinct product and not the banned pan masala product.

The regulator also directed that the promotional campaign be stopped and related advertising material be removed from digital platforms.

Appearing for PB Agro, counsel argued that the August 11, 2026 notice was issued only to the actors and not to the company, even though the company would be directly affected by any action taken by the regulator.

The company further argued that it was not given an opportunity to present its case before the notices were issued.

PB Agro claimed that the Maharashtra FDA had no jurisdiction to direct the stoppage of advertisements for Vimal Elaichi. It also argued that the allegations of surrogate advertising were unfounded, pointing out that Vimal Pan Masala has allegedly not been manufactured or sold in Maharashtra since 2001.

The company further relied on the nationwide prohibition on pan masala containing tobacco, which came into effect following directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Opposing the plea, counsel appearing for the Centre and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) argued that the petition should have been filed before the Bombay High Court, since the impugned show-cause notice was issued by the Maharashtra government authorities.

The Delhi High Court has now reserved its order on the question of territorial jurisdiction.