Browse Sections

• Education
• Business 
• Blog
• Special reports

Spice war ends

31/10/2006

A LEGAL feud that has divided the Pataks, one of the north west most successful Asian business families for almost a decade ended with an undisclosed multi-million pound settlement announced in the High Court in London

Kirit Pathak, who runs the Leigh, Lancashire-company was sued by his sisters Chitralekha Mehta and Anila Shastri after the collapse of an earlier court agreement which the two sisters had been expected to receive £4m each to settle their claim that they were cheated out of shares allocated to them by their late father.

Mrs Shastri, aged 52, and Mrs Mehta, 56, took company boss Mr Pathak to court claiming their mother had given him their shares.
The lengthy high court claim has divided the family.

It also attracted huge controversy after the sisters ran up a legal aid bill of £1.5 million .

The feud erupted after their father Laxmishankar Pathak handed control of the business to his four sons but gifted 1,250 shares each to his daughters in 1974.

In 1989, Mrs Mehta and Mrs Shastri gave their shares - then worth five per cent of the firm - to their mother for safekeeping and that they never intended to lose control of them.

But, following a Indian tradition, she gave them all to her son Kirit, who was mounting a £6 million takeover.

Mr Pathak, of Heaton, Bolton refused to give the shares back to the sisters after the company became successful with a turnover that soared from £3.4 million to £75 million.

Their mother claimed her daughters were not her responsibility anymore because they were married and therefore did not hand back the assets.

Mrs Mehta and Mrs Shastri started legal proceedings in 2004. They said the battle was about family unity not money
Mrs Mehta said: "We are both very happy. We have won and the truth has prevailed.

"This was not about the money. We have fought this case to get back what we thought was rightfully ours - that is, the shares in the company."

The daughters argued they were victims of a Hindu culture in which business assets always went to the sons of a family.
No members of the family were present in court for the hearing.