No Delhi Jurisdiction Over Mumbai FDA Notice: Delhi HC

Delhi Office No Ground to Challenge Mumbai FDA Notice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Vimal Elaichi Maker's Petition

Published: 16 September 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by P B Agro LLP, master licensee of the "VIMAL" brand, against a show cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration, Mumbai, to its brand ambassadors, holding that no substantial part of the cause of action arose in Delhi (paras 1, 42-44). Maharashtra's courts were also the more convenient forum; the merits were left open (paras 43-44).

Key holdings

Cause of action means the material facts needed to obtain relief; incidental facts do not count (para 22).

A petitioner's office or business in Delhi does not bring every out-of-State regulatory action to Delhi (para 23).

The situs of an apex statutory body does not decide jurisdiction over every State authority's action (paras 34, 36).

Courts in Maharashtra were the more convenient forum (paras 39, 43).

The petition was dismissed without any opinion on the merits (para 44).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

P B Agro LLP, the Delhi-based master licensee for VIMAL elaichi and pan masala without tobacco, engages actors as brand ambassadors (paras 2, 4). On 11.08.2026 the FDA, Greater Mumbai Division, issued a show cause notice to three brand ambassadors, all residents of Mumbai, over the advertising campaign (paras 5, 18-19, 42). The company sought to quash it in Delhi, relying on the Ministry of Health, FSSAI and the Central Consumer Protection Authority being in Delhi, the campaign being run from Delhi, and Bakshish Ahmad (paras 8-10). The respondents objected to territorial jurisdiction (para 7).

Court's Findings

The Court held that the notice was issued by the FDA, Mumbai, under State powers, with nothing to show that FSSAI directed it, and cited the ban on pan masala in Maharashtra (paras 18-19). The company's Delhi base, and the campaign being conceived or paid for there, were not part of the cause of action, which means only the material facts needed to obtain relief (paras 21-23). Relying on Utpal Kumar Basu, Swaika Properties and Adani Exports, it held that a party's office or business location does not confer jurisdiction (paras 24-26, 31). The notice was only a show cause notice, not served on the petitioner, and its addressees had not approached the Court (paras 27-28). If FSSAI's location in Delhi sufficed, every State food-safety action could be challenged in Delhi (para 34). Bakshish Ahmad was distinguishable (para 37). Even if some incidental cause arose in Delhi, forum conveniens pointed to Maharashtra, as in Kusum Ingots (paras 39-40).

Legal Principle

A writ court's territorial jurisdiction depends on where the material facts constituting the cause of action arose, not on where the petitioner has its office or where an apex regulator sits; even where some incidental facts occur within its limits, the court may decline under forum conveniens (paras 22-23, 36, 39).

Precedents Relied Upon

Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711
Followed Discussed at ¶ 24
Facts such as an office or communications within a State do not by themselves confer territorial jurisdiction.
Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. (1994) 4 SCC 710
Followed Discussed at ¶ 25
A High Court with no part of the cause of action within its limits should not entertain the matter.
State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties (1985) 3 SCC 217
Followed Discussed at ¶ 26
The location of the petitioner or its office is irrelevant to territorial jurisdiction.

View all precedents (6)

Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 567
Followed Discussed at ¶ 31
Business activities in a State do not confer jurisdiction unless they form part of the cause of action.
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254
Followed Discussed at ¶ 40
The seat of the Union Government alone does not confer jurisdiction; forum conveniens may be applied.
Bakshish Ahmad v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 INSC 630
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 9, 37
Relied on by the petitioner; distinguishable on facts.