Butter Chicken dispute: Daryaganj Restaurant moves Delhi HC against alleged defamatory remarks by Moti Mahal's owner

New Delhi [India], March 27 (ANI): Daryaganj Restaurant has moved the Delhi High Court against alleged defamatory remarks by Moti Mahal's owner in a newspaper interview related to the origin of Butter Chicken.
Daryaganj and Moti Mahal are in a legal battle over the issue of who is the inventor of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani.
On the other hand, the owner of Moti Mahal asserted that the remarks in the question reflect the editorial perspective and cannot be attributed to the plaintiff (Moti Mahal).
Justice Sanjeev Narula recently directed the owner of Moti Mahal to file an affidavit affirming their effort to distance themselves from the disputed statement in the published articles.
In the application, it was pointed out by the counsel for the owner of Daryaganj that the article published in the Wall Street Journal has been further circulated and replicated by other websites.
"Plaintiffs are directed to submit an affidavit, elaborating on the assertions and affirming their effort to distance themselves from the disputed statement in the published articles. Let the same be filed within two weeks from today," Justice Narula ordered on March 20.
The matter has been listed on May 29, the date already fixed for the hearing.
The owner of Moti Mahal had earlier approached the High Court claiming that their predecessor, Kundan Lal Gujral was the actual inventor of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani.
The plaintiff sued Daryaganj and sought a direction to restrain Daryaganj restaurant from claiming that their predecessor Kundan Lal Jaggi was the inventor of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani.
It has also sought direction to restrain Daryaganj restaurant from using the tagline "from the inventor of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani" on its website and various social media platforms as well as in print and electronic media.
The High Court had issued a summons to Daryaganj Restaurant and directed them to file a written statement to the suit. However, the suit was opposed by the defendant claiming it to be baseless. (ANI)