Hyderabad funds case: UK court directs Pakistan to pay £150,000 to India

Pakistan no longer has sovereign immunity over State of Hyderabad’s wealth, London Court ruled earlier

Web Desk March 23, 2015
The immunity waiver under the verdict is irrevocable. PHOTO: REUTERS

LONDON: A UK court has directed Pakistan to pay £150,000 to India as legal fees in the 67-year-old Hyderabad Funds case involving the Nizam's money.

It was held in the case that Pakistan had no 'sovereign immunity' and the Judge ordered the Pakistan High Commissioner in London to pay the legal costs incurred by other respondents in the case relating to the 'Hyderabad Funds' which is currently valued at £35 million.

The legal costs of the respondents which includes the Government of India, the National Westminster Bank and the Nizam's heirs, are approximately £400,000. Of this amount, India has been paid £150,000, the National Westminster Bank £132,000 and the Nizam's heirs about £60,000 each respectively.

Read: Pakistan loses sovereign immunity over Nizam of Hyderabad's wealth 

The immunity waiver under the verdict, which has opened the doors for India to recover the frozen funds through legal process, is irrevocable.

It also came to be understood that the Indian government and the heirs of Nizam were holding consultations on the matter.

In 1957, Pakistan invoked its right to sovereign immunity from any court proceedings in Britain regarding the issue. As the legal route to recovering funds became blocked, India dealt with Pakistan bilaterally.

The funds refer to the £1,007,940 and 9 shillings which were transferred from the former State of Hyderabad’s bank account in National Westminster Bank in London, to an account in the same bank; of the then Pakistan high commissioner to UK in 1948.

The money was transferred by an agent who appeared to be acting on behalf of the absolute ruler of one of the largest and richest of the India princely states, the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad.

This article originally appeared on NDTV 


Hella | 6 years ago | Reply @Fahad, Kings do not have any private wealth. It is taxes collected from his subjects and the spoils of war. Just as a state does not belong to one person, the wealth of the state does not belong to one person, even if he was king of the state.
observer | 6 years ago | Reply @Shakil Khan: "If Nizam transferred this amount during his life, who are India or heirs to claim this? " In the first place, the Nizam was a Turk who was occupying Indian land and stole wealth belonging to the native Indian people. So, a more correct question would be who was this Nizam, a Turk, to rule over India and steal fabulous Indian wealth.
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ


Most Read