Skip to main content

Nizam funds: Why High Court of England and Wales rejected Pak 'sovereign' claim

By Sanjeev Sirohi*
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales has given a landmark judgment on October 2, 2019 after a long-drawn-out legal battle that dates back to 1948, rejecting rightly Pakistan’s claims, ruling that the Seventh Nizam of Hyderabad’s descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from London’s National Westminster Bank. Thus, the decades old legal battle has now finally culminated in India’s favour.
The verdict has left Pakistan red faced and has left India with a big smile on its face. Justice Marcus Smith of the High Court of England and Wales, who authored the judgment, ruled that the 35 million pounds, that is about Rs 306 crore, deposited in the London Bank belonged to the Nizam’s family and India, rejecting claims made by Pakistan through its High Commissioner in London.
It also made it clear that funds worth one million pounds (now 35 million pounds) were sent by the erstwhile Nizam Asaf Jah to Pakistan for “trust for safekeeping” and that their ownership vested in the Nizam himself.
At the time of partition in 1947, the then Nizam Asaf Jah had sent these funds to the then Pakistan High Commissioner in London for safekeeping of independent princely state of Hyderabad, in case of "invasion" from India. Subsequently, the Nizam claimed that he had not authorized the transfer and sought the return of the amount.
Nevertheless, the request was denied by the NatWest Bank at UK, where the funds were kept, which said that the fund could be released only on an express agreement of Pakistan, which held the legal title to the funds.
The Nizam, whose claims were fully backed by the Indian government, took legal recourse and issued proceedings against the bank, which initially failed due to Pakistan’s sovereign immunity.
However, what went in India’s and Nizam’s favour was when this obstacle was removed in 2013 and Pakistan claimed ownership of the fund and submitted a claim, thereby waiving its sovereign immunity. The matter was placed before the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, which finally culminated in this landmark judgment.
Justice Marcus Smith in his judgment held:
“Nizam VII was beneficially entitled to the Fund and those claiming in right of Nizam VII – the Princes and India – are entitled to have the sum paid out to their order. I will leave it to the parties to frame an appropriate form of order for my approval.”
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has hailed the verdict saying, “The Court has issued a wide-ranging judgment today after analyzing documentation going back more than 70 years and embracing the law of constructive and resulting trusts, unjust enrichment, foreign act of state, illegality and limitation of actions.”
It added, the court “rejected arguments advanced by Pakistan that the dispute was non-justiciable, either in whole or in part; that the doctrine of illegality somehow barred recovery; or that the claims of other parties were time barred.”
The historic case pertains to the transfer of 1,007,940 pounds (now worth 35 pound million) and nine shillings by the Nizam’s envoy and Foreign Minister in London, Moin Nawaz Jung, on September 16, 1948, to Pakistan, when the Indian Army’s tanks were closing in on Hyderabad from all directions.
Moin Nawaz Jung transferred the money to the account of Habib Ibrahim Rahimtoola, the High Commissioner of Pakistan in London, which the bank processed on September 1948. However, Hyderabad’s armed forces had already surrendered to General JN Chowdhury on September 17, 1948 after a military operation known as Operation Polo.
Within days of the surrender, the Nizam sent a message to the National Westminster Bank demanding the money to be transferred back to his account. Pakistan also claimed the money with its tall claims. The case has seen many twists and turns over the years before it finally ended in India’s favour.
In 1965, the Nizam assigned to the President of India, his claim to the fund and joined forces with India to fight for his claim on the money. It is unclear however as to how the fund will be divided.
Pakistan said that the judgment has not taken into account the “historical context” that led to the Nizam transferring the money to Pakistan’s high commissioner in London in order to protect his state from “Indian invasion”. Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, “Pakistan is closely examining all aspects of the detailed judgment and will take further action in light of legal advice received.”
Pakistan’s claim rested squarely on the premise that the money was transferred for the weapons supplied by the country to the Nizam. The court relied on the testimony of Prince Muffakam Jah, brother of the Seventh Nizam, documentary evidence as well as public documents produced by India and Pakistan.
The sixth Nizam
Paul Hewitt who was partner in Withers LLP, who has acted for the Eighth Nizam since Pakistan issued proceedings in 2013 was quoted as saying that, “Our client was still a child when the dispute first arose and is now in his 80s. It is a great relief to see this dispute finally resolved in his lifetime.”
The judgment held:
“I conclude that Pakistan’s illegality arguments fails for the following reasons:
"1. First, India is indeed correct in her assertion that the question of illegality is “analytically irrelevant” to the claim to the Fund advanced by India.
"2. Secondly, even if the question of illegality were relevant to India’s claims, the Settlement between the Princes and India has rendered the issue irrelevant because the rival claims to the Fund of the Princes and India have validly been compromised, such that the question of illegality is no longer before the Court.
3. Thirdly, there is no illegality alleged that is sufficient to cause this Court to prevent the Princes and India – specifically India – from asserting her claim to the Fund.”

Justice Marcus Smith in his conclusion sums up saying:
I conclude that:
"(1) The Fund was held by Pakistan through her High Commissioner in the United Kingdom on trust for Nizam VII and his successors in title. The Fund was not held by Rahimtoola personally, nor did either Pakistan or Rahimtoola have any beneficial interest in the Fund.
"(2) The trust was either a constructive trust in favour of Nizam VII or a resulting trust in favour of Nizam VII. It was not, as I have found, an express trust because I find that Nizam VII did not communicate to Moin any authority to effect the Transfer and create a trust. However, Moin’s conduct was consistent with the unexpressed wishes of Nizam VII. Both Moin and Rahimtoola intended that an express trust should arise and – had there been a communication of authority by Nizam VII to Moin – an express trust would have arisen.
"(3) There is nothing in the involvement of Pakistan, India, Hyderabad or Nizam VII as sovereign states or rulers of sovereign states to prevent a trust (whether express, constructive or resulting) from arising.
"(4) It is unnecessary, given the Settlement reached as between the Princes and India, for me to determine whether it is the Princes or India that is Nizam VII’s successor in title, whether by virtue of the 1963 Settlement and 1965 Appointment (in the case of the Princes) or the 1965 Assignment (in the case of India). However, it is appropriate to record that the Nizam’s successor in title can be no-one other than the Princes or India. The administrator of Nizam VII’s estate (Mr Lintott) was a party to these proceedings and was given every opportunity to bring a rival claim to those of the Princes and India; he did not do and is bound by the outcome of these proceedings. It is also appropriate to record that during the course of these proceedings, I have seen no hint of the possibility of any further claimant to the Fund beyond the Princes and India.
"(5) The Princes’ and India’s alternative claims in restitution succeed against (i) Pakistan and (ii) in the alternative, the Bank. I find that Pakistan’s assertion of a defence of limitation is an abuse of the process of the court and order that the paragraphs in Pakistan’s statements of case asserting this defence be struck out. The Bank never pleaded a defence of limitation, and I find that a claim in restitution is properly maintainable against the Bank.
"(6) Pakistan’s contention of non-justiciability by reason of the foreign act of state doctrine and non-enforceability on grounds of illegality both fail.”

Para 341 of the judgment said:
“In these circumstances, Nizam VII was beneficially entitled to the Fund and those claiming in right of Nizam VII – the Princes and India – are entitled to have the sum paid out to their order. I will leave it to the parties to frame an appropriate form of order for my approval.”
The 140-page judgment rightly rules in favour of the Nizam VII and India and rejects all the claims made by Pakistan! Pakistan should be gracious enough to accept this historic verdict by the High Court of England and Wales.
Knowing fully well that its tall claims hold no legal basis, Pakistan chose to knock the door of the High Court of England and Wales. Pakistan has every reason on earth to sulk as its tall claims of ‘arms-for-money’ argument and ‘safeguarding-the-money’ argument got rejected as it did not cut much ice with the judge, and India and Nizam of Hyderabad have every reason to celebrate.
India had earlier tried to settle the lingering dispute amicably but Pakistan never cooperated, and so no mutually agreed solution could be arrived.
---
*Advocate based in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

TRENDING

What's behind public sector banks showing huge profits in 2nd quarter of 2022-23?

By Thomas Franco*  The quarter two results of the public sector banks (PSBs) appear to be noteworthy compared to a few years ago. All these banks showed good profits in the financial year 2021-22. Twelve PSBs made a net profit of Rs 25,685 crore in quarter 2 of FY23 and a total of Rs 40,991 crore in the first half of 2023. The combined profit of 12 banks in March 2022 was Rs 66,539 crore which was 110% more than 2021 – Rs. 31,816 crore. The Asset Quality Review of 2015 saw a surge in NPAs of PSBs jumping to Rs 8.96 lakh crore in March 2018 from Rs 2.17 lakh crore in March 2014. This was simply because the norms for NPAs were changed from 180 days to 90 days, and all restructuring of even genuine accounts was done away with. In 2018 NPA of SBI was 5.73% which has come down to 0.8% in Q2 of FY23. The NPA of Canara Bank has come down to 2.19% from 7.48% in Mar 2018. The same trend is seen in all public banks. Now SBI has seen a jump of 74% in its net profit, while Canara Bank’s profit is

Economist-editor's allegations on Narmada defamatory, baseless: Medha Patkar

Counterview Desk  In a reply directly addressed to well-known economist, journalist and columnist Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar’s two articles in the Times of India (republished here and here ), calling them defamatory and wondering whether they were borne out of “ignorance or a conspiracy through political alliance”, Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Pakar has said that the Narmada Sardar Saravar Project and the people's movement by adivasis, farmers, labourers, fish workers, potters and all the generations’ old communities from the river valley have suddenly come to be focused on, since the Gujarat elections are in the doorstep. She believes that while the “defamatory accusations with baseless conceptions such as ‘urban naxals’ are to be laughed at as the electoral strategic moves, one gets shocked to read the articles by a known old columnist like Swaminathan Ankalesaria Aiyar, published in a reputed daily like the Times of India." According to her, Aiyar’s two articl

Business back to normal? IIM-A survey says, sales expectations have sharply improved

By Our Representative  The Indian Institute of Management’s Business Inflation Expectations Survey (BIES), which polls a panel of business leaders to find out their perception of slack in economy, including their inflation expectations, year-ahead cost expectations and the factors influencing price changes, such as profit and sales levels, etc., has said that the cost perceptions data indicates signs of moderation in price pressures. Carried out for September, the survey says, the cost pressure of the reporting firms has shifted from “very significant increase (over 6%) to moderate increase (3.1% to 6%).” It adds, “The percentage of firms perceiving over 10% cost increase y-o-y has declined. Over 21% of the firms in September 2022 round of the survey perceive that costs have increased very significantly (over 10%) – down from 26% recorded in August 2022.” Claiming to be a unique survey, in that it goes straight to businesses -- the price setters -- rather than to consumers or household

GoI's productivity linked incentives to corporates 'without independent analysis'

Counterview Desk  Wondering how prudent is the Government of India's (GoI's) Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, EAS Sarma, former secretary, GoI, in a representation to Nirmala Sitharaman, Union finance minister, has said it appears to be nothing more than subsidy to the private sector without any responsibility. Giving a specific example against the backdrop of announcement of 50% subsidy covering the project cost of the Vedanta Group's decision to set up a semiconductor fabrication plant in Gujarat, in collaboration with Foxconn, Sarma says, "The total cost of this project is reported to be Rs 1,54,000 crore. 50% of this works out to Rs 77,000 crore." Stating that this creates the impression that the entire subsidy allocation for the semiconductor manufacturing sector would be appropriated by this company, Sarma says, "The Gujarat government did not lag behind in liberally announcing similar incentives for the Vedanta-Foxconn project. It offered 7

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Hindutva groups threat to peace, freedom: US diaspora groups tell FBI, other govt depts

By Our Representative  The Islamophobic and neo-Nazi ideology of Hindutva is a clear and present danger to peace and freedoms in the United States, a coalition of civil rights organizations told key officials of the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, the US Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at a recent event in Edison, New Jersey. At the event titled United Against Hate, activists from American Muslims for Democracy (AMD), Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR) and Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) made detailed presentations on this ideology of Hindu supremacism that is committing mass persecution of India’s Muslims and Christians and is rearing its ugly head in New Jersey as well as across the US. Attending the event were David S Leonardis, Special Investigator from the New Jersey Department of Law & Public Safety; Michael E Campion, Chief of the Civil Rights Division for the US Attorney General's Office; and Jonathan R Norbut of the U.S. Dep

BJP poll gimmick? Bilkis Bano rape case 'pardon' vs Rajiv assassins' release

By Sandeep Pandey*  Supreme Court has released six convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. This was bound to happen as earlier AG Perarivalan was released in the same case, setting a precedent. Even though four of them are Sri Lankans but a popular Tamil sentiment favoured the release of these convicts which is why Tamil political parties supported this and resolutions were passed by different governments in Tamil Nadu to his effect.  Rajiv Gandhi paid the price of sending Indian Peace Keeping Force to Sri Lanka where it got entangled with Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and eventually the whole operation ended up is a fiasco.  However, most importantly Sonia and Priyanka Gandhi and probably Rahul too do not have any objections to the release of these convicts. In fact, Sonia Gandhi played an important role in getting the death sentence of the only lady among the convicts Nalini commuted to life term through the Tamil Nadu Governor. Priyanka visited Nalini in Vellore Jail and

Diminishing returns: Hydro projects contribute less than 10% of India's power generation

Counterview Desk  Pointing out that India’s hydro generation remains around 10% for the last six years, the advocacy group South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) has said that power generation from hydropower projects continues to show diminishing returns, as has been the story close to three decades now. Yet, says SANDRP in a note, the Government of India continues to push large hydro by announcing a slew of additional subsidies for hydropower projects, more for political economy reason. In fact, attempts are being made to flog unviable hydropower projects with various kind of manipulations, illegalities and violations, it adds. Text : In last six years, from 2016-17 to 2021-22, India’s large hydropower projects (projects above 25 MW installed capacity) have contributed just around 10% of the total power generation, going as low as 9.68% in 2017-18. In fact, in three of these six years, large hydro contributed less than 10% and recovering only marginally in the rest,

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.