from
The last pages of the chapter „At the United Nations‟ also reveals obtrusive investigation on the controversy of Hyderabad Funds. On June 26, 1948, the Nizam issued a „Firman‟ by earmarking the credit of £1,007,940 at Westminster Bank, under the title of “Government of Hyderabad”. Moin Nawaz and Mir Nawaz Jung Bahadur, the Nizam‟s Agent-General in London had the powers to operate the account. “On September 16, Mir Nawaz called on Habib Rahimtoola, a former Bombay businessman, and then Pakistan‟s High Commissioner in London..... and asked him to accept a transfer of the funds‟. Habib Rahimtoola accepted the transfer on the advice of the then Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Sir Mohammed Zafarullah, Habib Rahimtoola though he, in his statements during investigations, professed ignorance on whether the money belonged to the Nizam or the State. This was followed by the instructions given by Moin to the Westminster Bank to close the Nizam Government‟s account and confirmed the specimen signatures of Rahimtoola under the Book Reviews 195 title „Habib Ibrahim Rahimtoola, High Commissioner for Pakistan in London‟. The letter was delivered to the Bank by hand on September 20, three days after the defeat of the Nizam. Soon, the cables were routed through the Government of India in reaction to the re-transfer of the account. On September 28, a request was sent by the Nizam himself. When Rahimtoola was replaced by Mr. M.A.H. Isphahani, Pakistan's High Commissioner in London, Rahimtoola requested the Bank to transfer the debt to his name. This was refused by the Bank, and soon the Government of India filed a suit in England against Moin Nawaz, Rahimtoola and the Bank for recovery of the money with interest. Since there was no breach done by either Moin or Rahimtoola legally, the transaction was considered inter-governmental and therefore to be solved in inter-governmental negotiations, in a ruling in July 1956. The Appellant Court, however, gave a unanimous decision in favour of the Nizam who had denied the orders regarding the transfer of money in favour of Rahimtoola on an affidavit. The decision of Court of Appeal was once again reversed by the five judges of the House of Lords unanimously in November 1957, and held Pakistan as a “legal owner of the funds without having the „equitable title‟ or „beneficial interests‟ which vested in the Nizam. The latter could displace the former by litigation, but Pakistan as a sovereign state, refused to participate in the exercise altogether (p.268).” The issue had remained crucial in the talks between India and Pakistan, and eventually in 1960, was settled on sharing the amount with the ratio of 40:60. Both the countries jointly submitted a letter to the Westminster Bank on November 15, 1983. The request has been rejected by the bank on the basis of the instructions filed by the Nizam to The Nova Scotia Company (Bahamas) Limited, as a trustee of the fund for his two grandsons, and other family members. The Nova Scotia Bank has given a formal notice in regard to their interest in the fund to the Westminster Bank (p.268). With this background in place, authenticated by the research documents of a leading lawyer of India, the recent direction by a UK court to pay 1,50,000 pounds to India as legal fees in the 67-year-old Hyderabad funds case involving the Nizam‟s money, looks malign and unreasonable (As per Mr Noorani). Strategic Studies 196 The court has denied the „sovereign immunity‟ to Pakistan in this case, and termed Pakistan‟s behaviour as “unreasonable”. The sum of "Hyderabad Funds‟ is currently valued as 35 million pounds.
The Destruction of Hyderabad. A.G.Noorani Abdul Ghafoor Abdul Majeed Noorani.
( London: Husrt & Company, 2014. Pp. 338
KCR/ CM K.Chandrasekhar rao should ask for this money (35 million Pounds ) to help the development of Telangana
The last pages of the chapter „At the United Nations‟ also reveals obtrusive investigation on the controversy of Hyderabad Funds. On June 26, 1948, the Nizam issued a „Firman‟ by earmarking the credit of £1,007,940 at Westminster Bank, under the title of “Government of Hyderabad”. Moin Nawaz and Mir Nawaz Jung Bahadur, the Nizam‟s Agent-General in London had the powers to operate the account. “On September 16, Mir Nawaz called on Habib Rahimtoola, a former Bombay businessman, and then Pakistan‟s High Commissioner in London..... and asked him to accept a transfer of the funds‟. Habib Rahimtoola accepted the transfer on the advice of the then Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Sir Mohammed Zafarullah, Habib Rahimtoola though he, in his statements during investigations, professed ignorance on whether the money belonged to the Nizam or the State. This was followed by the instructions given by Moin to the Westminster Bank to close the Nizam Government‟s account and confirmed the specimen signatures of Rahimtoola under the Book Reviews 195 title „Habib Ibrahim Rahimtoola, High Commissioner for Pakistan in London‟. The letter was delivered to the Bank by hand on September 20, three days after the defeat of the Nizam. Soon, the cables were routed through the Government of India in reaction to the re-transfer of the account. On September 28, a request was sent by the Nizam himself. When Rahimtoola was replaced by Mr. M.A.H. Isphahani, Pakistan's High Commissioner in London, Rahimtoola requested the Bank to transfer the debt to his name. This was refused by the Bank, and soon the Government of India filed a suit in England against Moin Nawaz, Rahimtoola and the Bank for recovery of the money with interest. Since there was no breach done by either Moin or Rahimtoola legally, the transaction was considered inter-governmental and therefore to be solved in inter-governmental negotiations, in a ruling in July 1956. The Appellant Court, however, gave a unanimous decision in favour of the Nizam who had denied the orders regarding the transfer of money in favour of Rahimtoola on an affidavit. The decision of Court of Appeal was once again reversed by the five judges of the House of Lords unanimously in November 1957, and held Pakistan as a “legal owner of the funds without having the „equitable title‟ or „beneficial interests‟ which vested in the Nizam. The latter could displace the former by litigation, but Pakistan as a sovereign state, refused to participate in the exercise altogether (p.268).” The issue had remained crucial in the talks between India and Pakistan, and eventually in 1960, was settled on sharing the amount with the ratio of 40:60. Both the countries jointly submitted a letter to the Westminster Bank on November 15, 1983. The request has been rejected by the bank on the basis of the instructions filed by the Nizam to The Nova Scotia Company (Bahamas) Limited, as a trustee of the fund for his two grandsons, and other family members. The Nova Scotia Bank has given a formal notice in regard to their interest in the fund to the Westminster Bank (p.268). With this background in place, authenticated by the research documents of a leading lawyer of India, the recent direction by a UK court to pay 1,50,000 pounds to India as legal fees in the 67-year-old Hyderabad funds case involving the Nizam‟s money, looks malign and unreasonable (As per Mr Noorani). Strategic Studies 196 The court has denied the „sovereign immunity‟ to Pakistan in this case, and termed Pakistan‟s behaviour as “unreasonable”. The sum of "Hyderabad Funds‟ is currently valued as 35 million pounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment