Browse Sections
Interactive
Popular Sections
Clouds and sunshineNews
Where it all began in a humble corner shop - the original Mr Pathak (right)
A right pickle
27/ 2/2004
Once, the UK's premier Asian foods dynasty took great pride in
their family tradition.
But now things are far from harmonius as relatives fall out over
profits from the booming £50 million business
KIRIT and Meena Pathak, the husband and wife team behind what they
claim is the biggest Indian food factory in the world, are always
keen to emphasise the family nature of their multimillion pound
business with its headquarters in Lancashire.
They are happy to retell the tale of how Mr Pathak's father arrived
in Britain with only £5 in his pocket and founded an empire now
worth more than £50m, but which is still based on the principles he
laid down.
But a hearing this week before a judge at the high court in
London will expose the trouble at the heart of Britain's most
famous producers of tikka masala and tandoori.
Kirit Pathak's sisters, Chitralekha and Anila, claim they lost
their share in the business because of the Indian custom of
property being handed down only to male heirs. They argue that even
if this tradition is still accepted by some families, it will not
do for theirs because it has become so anglicised.
The court is likely to be taken through the narrative of how the
Pathak family created Patak's - they were persuaded to drop the 'h'
to make it easier for English speakers to pronounce.
Mr Pathak's father, Laxmishanker, arrived in Britain from Kenya
with his wife and six children in the late 1950s after Mau Mau
terror attacks. He had only those few pounds in his pocket but
spotted that there might be a market for Asian food in London and
started to produce samosas in a 6ft by 5ft kitchen.
He eventually saved enough to buy his first shop in London. He
began expanding his range, producing chutneys and pickles.
Kirit began work aged six as an errand boy. Because of his lack of
English he would carry two notes, one showing the address he was
delivering food to, the other showing his home address. "We showed
the bus driver the note in our left pocket to go and the note in
our right to come back," he told the Guardian two years ago.
The business flourished and began taking orders not only from
individual households but from shops, businesses, restaurants and
even the Indian high commission.
While on a buying trip to India in 1976 Kirit Pathak met Meena.
They married and she became the creative force behind the company,
which continued to expand.
Two years ago Cherie Blair was guest of honour when the husband and
wife team opened a new factory in Wigan, Lancashire. The Pathaks
now claim their products are used by an estimated 90 per cent of
Indian restaurants in Britain and they sell to 40 countries
worldwide.
Mrs Pathak, 47, a former model, writes books and appears on
television and radio. But she also continues to develop more than
20 recipes a year, using many of the methods the family has always
used.
The company's website says the secret formulas for their products
are "a very closely guarded secret and are known only to the Pathak
family".
But the court case, which began last week, has shown all is not
harmonious.
In 1974, according to papers put before the court, all of
Laxmishanker Pathak's children - four boys and two girls - were
issued shares in the company.
In 1989 Anila, aged 52, and Chitralekha, 56, transferred the shares
to their mother, Shantagaury. They claim they believed they were
doing this for business reasons and thought the shares would be
returned.
But, according to the papers, Shantagaury immediately passed the
shares on to her son, Kirit, who is now 51. Later that year he
bought out his three brothers and parents.
At one hearing Mehta claimed she was manoeuvred out of her shares.
She claimed it was made clear that her mother would hold her shares
on a temporary basis. Mehta claims she has a note her mother wrote
hinting she would hand back shares and had talked to her son about
this.
The counsel for Patak's countered that the sister were motivated by
greed now the company has become an international success and the
note is a forgery.
At the heart of the case is the question of whether Anila and
Chitralekha were cut out because they were women. They claim they
were victims of the Indian custom by which businesses are passed
down only to male heirs, and point out that under India's Hindu
succession act 1956 property can now be passed to women. They also
claim that, anyway, the Pathak family became so anglicised that it
should follow British rather than Indian rules and customs on
inheritance.
In documents before the court they argue: "Even if exclusively male
inheritance is still the custom in India the bare assertion takes
no account of how anglicised the family had become and there is
nothing from the father himself to say he adhered to those old
days." Both sisters want damages from Kirit. Anila is also battling
for damages from her mother, who is now 77.
Whatever its outcome this case has certainly got Patak's in a right
pickle.
l This article first appeared in Asian News' sister paper, The Guardian
Got an opinion you want to share?| Card | BT Fee |
| Capital One BT Exclusive | 3.0% |
| Virgin Credit Card | 2.98% |
| Barclaycard Platinum 'As on TV' | 2.9% |
| Capital One Platinum | 3.0% |
| Lloyds TSB Platinum MasterCard | 3.0% |
| Company | Typical APR |
| Moneyback Bank | 8.4% |
| Alliance & Leicester | 8.7% |
| Halifax (Semi-exclusive) | 8.8% |
| Bank of Scotland (Semi-exclusive) | 8.8% |
| Barclays | 8.9% |
| Provider | AER* |
|
ICICI BANK HiSAVE Fixed Rate Account |
7.20% |
|
ICICI BANK HiSAVE Fixed Rate Account |
7.00% |
|
ICICI BANK HiSAVE Fixed Rate Account |
7.00% |
|
ARRAY(0x2b62a9629590) 6 Month Fixed Rate Savings Account |
6.60% |