Explained: Why are 2 Delhi restaurants waging a war over Butter Chicken-Dal Makhani?
A legal battle ensues between Delhi-based restaurant chains Daryaganj and Moti Mahal over claims regarding the invention of Butter Chicken. Moti Mahal asserts that their predecessor, Kundan Lal Gujral, created the iconic dish, while Daryaganj attributes its invention to Kundan Lal Jaggi.
FollowDaryaganj, a prominent restaurant chain in Delhi, has taken legal action against alleged defamatory remarks made by the proprietors of another restaurant, Moti Mahal regarding the origin of butter chicken. Moti Mahal's owners, who claim that their predecessor invented the iconic dish, asserted that the contentious remarks were merely an "editorial perspective" and not representative of their official stance.
Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court has directed Moti Mahal's proprietors to submit an affidavit distancing themselves from the disputed statements. Daryaganj has expressed concerns over the negative impact these remarks have had on its reputation, particularly after being published in The Wall Street Journal and subsequently circulated by other media outlets.
The Fight Over Dish Invention
For years, two prominent restaurant chains have vied for credit over the invention of beloved Indian dishes, Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani. Moti Mahal proprietors assert that their predecessor, the late Kundan Lal Gujral, was the culinary genius behind these iconic recipes, which have since become synonymous with Indian cuisine worldwide. On the other hand, Daryaganj restaurant attributes the creation to their predecessor, the late Kundan Lal Jaggi.
In its legal action, Moti Mahal contends that Gujral not only introduced the first Tandoori Chicken but also innovated Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani, bringing them to India post-partition. According to their claim, Gujral's culinary ingenuity stemmed from a practical concern – the preservation of unsold chicken leftovers. To prevent them from drying out, he purportedly devised a sauce, known as 'makhani' or butter sauce, comprising tomatoes, butter, cream, and spices, which now imparts the dishes their distinctive flavour.
Moti Mahal asserts that the invention of Dal Makhani is intricately linked with that of Butter Chicken, as Gujral applied a similar recipe using black lentils to create the former around the same period. While Daryaganj has yet to formally respond to the lawsuit, its legal representatives appeared before the Court on January 16, vehemently challenging the allegations. They dismissed the suit as baseless, arguing that there has been no misrepresentation on their part and the accusations are devoid of factual basis.
They pointed out that the first Moti Mahal restaurant was a joint venture established by the predecessors of both parties – Gujral of Moti Mahal and Jaggi of Daryaganj – in Peshawar, further complicating the attribution of culinary credit.
The Legal Challenge
The legal dispute between the two restaurant chains stems from longstanding claims of invention regarding butter chicken and dal makhani recipes. Earlier this year, Moti Mahal initiated legal action against Daryaganj, alleging that their predecessors were the masterminds behind these iconic recipes, thereby challenging Daryaganj's use of the tagline "Inventors of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani."
Initially, the High Court had issued summons in response to Moti Mahal's lawsuit. However, the tables turned as Daryaganj filed an application within the suit, raising concerns regarding purported defamatory statements made by Moti Mahal's owners after the legal proceedings garnered media attention.
According to Daryaganj, Moti Mahal proprietors were quoted making derogatory remarks, such as accusing Daryaganj of "piggybacking off my legacy" and labelling them as "big cheats." These statements were not only reported in Indian media but also gained international coverage, notably in The Wall Street Journal.
Daryaganj argued that such remarks tarnished their reputation and constituted libel, especially in the context of the ongoing legal dispute. They demanded immediate corrective action from Moti Mahal to retract the defamatory statements from news platforms.
In response, Moti Mahal's legal team informed the Court that their public relations agent had promptly reached out to The Wall Street Journal, refuting the claims and requesting a retraction of the offensive remarks. Despite their efforts, the newspaper stood by the integrity of the story.
Moti Mahal's counsel emphasized that the disputed comments should be interpreted within the journalistic framework of the article, portraying an editorial perspective rather than a definitive stance from the proprietors. They assured the Court that appropriate communications would be issued to rectify any misinformation disclosed in the articles.
