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

North Gujarat gram panchayat bars villagers from dealing with Muslim hawkers, traders

By Our Representative  A gram panchayat in North Gujarat has barred its residents not to buy anything from Muslim traders and hawkers. An order of the Waghasan group gram panchayat of Tharad taluka of Banaskantha district dated June 30 states that the decision has been taken in the wake of beheading of a Hindu tailor after he posted a derogatory writeup on Prophet Mohammad in Udaipur. The gram panchayat resolution says, anyone seen buying or selling any commodity from a Muslim hawker or trader would be fined Rs 5,100. Bringing this to light, Mujahid Nafees, convener, Minority Coordination Committee, in a letter to Gujarat chief minister Bhupendra Patel, says, the state government should take legal action against the panchayat chief who has signed the “unjust” order. The letter says, the act of the sarpanch and other signatories is a violation of rule of law of the state and threat to peace, pointing out, the move is in violation of Article 15 of the Constitution, which says that none

Unlike Soviet Union, Russia is no friend to India: Ukrainian scholar tells 'Indian friends'

Counterview Desk In an open letter to "dear Indian friends", Anastasia Piliavsky, born in Odessa, Ukraine, studied at Boston and Oxford Universities (on a Rhodes Scholarship), and now teaches at King’s College, London, has said that she faces "deep moral dilemma", personally and professionally, over the "astonishingly unified Indian response to the war in Ukraine." Based on her interaction with a "number of thoughtful and caring Indian friends", in this letter, she says, she is "reeling at the ubiquitous silence at, justifications of or outright support for Putin’s terror, which now prevails in India, at the ubiquitous #IStandWithPutin and #istandwithrussia hashtags." She insists, India must understand, "Unlike the Soviet Union, Russia is no friend to India. Soviet leaders, beginning with (the Ukrainian) Nikita Khrushchev – who declared hindi rusi bhai bhai – built up deep political and cultural exchange with India." Text : I

Technocratic globalism, tyranny? Health Ministry warned: bill to 'enslave' Indians

Sandeep Pandey, Tushar Gandhi By Rosamma Thomas*  Union of Concerned Citizens, a group comprising Magsaysay Award winner Prof Sandeep Pandey, human rights activist Tushar Gandhi, former judge of the Bombay High Court BG Kolse Patil, pediatrician Dr Jacob Puliyel and several renowned Indian citizens have written to the Union Health Minister cautioning him against tabling the draft Public Health Bill in the Monsoon Session of Parliament. “The Public Health (Prevention, Control And Management Of Epidemics, Bio-Terrorism And Disasters) Bill, 2017 and a Prospective Bill of 2022 as discussed in news articles, is straightforwardly violative of Fundamental Rights of the citizens of India and therefore, Ultra Vires of the Indian Constitution. It contravenes several International Treaties and Conventions including the Nuremberg Treaty of 1947 which was enacted to ensure that no country would repeat such inhuman medical atrocities on fellow human beings”, the 12-page letter reads. “Strangely, t

Protesters demand release of Teesta Setalvad, Sreekumar, seek review of SC order

By Our Representative  Protests broke out across India on June 27 following Teesta Setalvad’s arrest demanding her immediate release. Sabrang India , a site run by Setalvad, claimed she was “arrested on trumped-up charges after the Supreme Court dismissed the petition moved by Zakia Jafri demanding an investigation into the larger conspiracy behind the 2002 Gujarat violence.” The protesters also demanded release of former DGP Gujarat police RB Sreekumar, also arrested simultaneously. The protests were preceded by over 2,200 people from across the globe signing a statement demanding their immediate release. Leading signatories such as People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) general secretary V Suresh, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) convenor Medha Patkar, former Naval chief Admiral Ramdas. “The state has used the observations made in the judgment to falsely and vindictively prosecute those who had struggled for justice even in the face of state callousness and complicit

Electoral bonds scheme 'compromises' voluntary nature PM relief fund donations

By Rosamma Thomas*  The Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) is meant to collect voluntary donations from the general public, either individuals or organizations, to enable assistance to people in times of natural disaster, or for expensive medical treatment. That fundamental voluntary character of the fund, however, has changed in recent years.  The gazette notification of January 2018 announcing the Electoral Bond scheme states, in Clause 12 (2): “The amount of bonds not encashed within the validity period of fifteen days shall be deposited by the authorized bank to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. The Union government has, thus, through notification, directed funds to be deposited into what was meant to be purely voluntary. Commodore Lokesh Batra, who has been campaigning for transparency in government functioning, holds that once a gazette notification has been issued directing that funds be deposited into the PMNRF, the character of the whole fund has changed,

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".

'Highly abnormal': AltNews journo's arrest suggests 'deterioration in media freedom'

By Bharat Dogra*  Leading media organizations have come out in strong support of recently arrested journalist Mohammed Zubair. These organizations include, among others, the Editors Guild of India, the Press Club of India, the Delhi Union of Journalists and DIGIPUB, a platform for several important digital media organizations. All these organizations have condemned the recent arrest of the noted journalist and demanded his immediate release. While leading human rights organizations and political parties have also made somewhat similar statements, the strong support of media organizations is particularly important as the effort of the authorities has been to try to present the arrested journalist as someone who has been indulging in irresponsible journalism.  In such a situation the support of those media organizations who are familiar with his work and who are most capable of judging the quality of his work is very important. In this context it is important that some media organization

Majoritarian silence helping Hindutva forces 'handover' national resources to corporates

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak*  The majority of Indian citizens are witnessing the persecution and everyday violence against their fellow citizens who are Muslims and religious minorities. The growing assaults on reason, science, secularism, Indian democracy and constitution are going to be landmarks in Indian history of diminishing democracy and citizenship rights. It is clear that Hindutva ideology is directly promoting sectarian politics of hate which is dangerous for the unity and integrity of India, peace and prosperity of Indians. The majoritarian silence helps in empowering Hindutva and their electoral dividends. From witnessing the persecution in the sidelines to the active participation and cheering loud or silence accelerates violence against our neighbours and our fellow citizens. How and why do majority of Indians stay silent and contribute to the persecution of their fellow citizens who are Muslims and religious minorities? The question baffles me as an Indian because I have gr

Electricity Bill: Centre's reform measures contain 'carrot and stick package' for states

Counterview Desk  The Peoples’ Commission on Public Sector and Public Services (PCPSPS), claiming to be a network of eminent academics, jurists, erstwhile administrators, trade unionists and social activists, seeking consultations with stakeholders with those who are against the government’s decision to monetise, disinvest and privatise public assets/enterprises, has said that the proposed Electricity (Amendment) Bill-2022 will have far-reaching impacts on the finances of states. Insisting that the proposed Bill would lead to “assault on India’s federal structure”, in a statement, it says, it would weaken the finances of states’ power distribution companies, have adverse impact on utility employees, cripple the states' finances, impose a heavy cost burden on the smaller subsidized consumers (especially farmers), and benefit only corporate business houses. “States cannot afford to ignore the far-reaching implications of the Bill on their economy, finances, agricultural and industria

Cops 'refuse to register' complaint after BSF shot landless worker off Bangla border

By Our Representative  Kirity Roy, secretary, Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), and national convener, Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), in a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), referring to the incident of “firing and execution” of a poor Muslim youth, has alleged that the 26 year old was was shot at “without giving any warning” one and half kilometers inside the Indian territory from Bangladesh border by an on- duty Border Security Force (BSF) personnel. Stating that the person, Ruhul Mondal, belonged to an Other Backward Class (OBC), and hailed from Ramnarayan Para village under Sagarpara police station in Murshidabad district, West Bengal, Roy in his representation said, the BSF person who shot at him is “attached with Singpara Border Outpost, 141 Battalion”, underlining, the BSF has now floated “self defense theory” to cover up its operation. According to the BSF officials, the incident took place in the jute fields in