Spicy legal row over original butter chicken
Two rival restaurants with historic claims to the dish’s invention prepare for battle in Delhi’s high court
IT IS one of India’s best-loved dishes and most famous exports, served across the world in a rich clay-red sauce with a distinctive aroma. But the true origin of butter chicken has long been contested by bitter rival restaurants in New Delhi.
The matter will now finally be settled in Delhi’s high court where judges are poring over a landmark 2,752-page lawsuit. The case – described by legal experts as “slippery as butter” – has been brought by Moti Mahal, a chain of restaurants that counts Richard Nixon among its previous guests. The restaurant owners are gunning for Daryaganj, a rival brand with competing links to the true “inventor” of the rich, creamy curry.
Butter chicken involves marinating chicken pieces and grilling them in a traditional tandoor oven before being simmered in a rich, mildly spiced tomato sauce, with cream and butter added to it. The legal case also includes allegations surrounding Dal Makhani, a slowcooked lentil dish enriched with cream and butter.
Moti Mahal claims its founder, the late Kundan Lal Gujral and grandfather of the chain’s owners, invented butter chicken when the first restaurant opened in Peshawar, in present-day Pakistan, before the family moved to Delhi after the country’s partition in 1947. Monish Gujral, the managing director at Moti Mahal, said on Wednesday: “You cannot take away somebody’s legacy. The dish was invented when our grandfather was in Pakistan”.
But the family that own Daryaganj say the Moti Mahal restaurant was in fact co-founded by their relative, Kundan Lal Jaggi. They shared with The Telegraph a faded, hand-written partnership document registered in April 1949 to support their argument.
The brand “Daryaganj – By the Inventors of Butter Chicken & Dal Makhani” was launched in April 2019 by the Jaggi family “as a tribute to the legacy of the Late Mr Kundan Lal Jaggi”, it says.
Moti Mahal accuses its rival of “misleading” diners and demands it drops the claims. It also says the competing chain copied the “look and feel” of their restaurants and produced a remarkably similar website. They also want £188,000 in damages.
The dispute has captured India’s attention, with television broadcasters running segments on the dish’s history, and social media alight with rowing fans. The official stamp of approval from the high court could make or break each of the rivals. But deciding that could take months, if not years, given the slow pace of India’s courts. The next hearing will take place in May.