India

'Too early for conclusion on Pak claim to Hyderabad Fund'

PNS, Agencies

While the Pakistan Foreign Office in Islamabad on Tuesday claimed that a British High Court has rejected India’s attempt to strike out Islamabad’s claim to the Hyderabad Fund, India reacted by saying it is premature to reach any conclusion regarding ownership of monies, as the matter is subjudiced.

However, the court had acknowledged there is much force in India’s arguments to strike out Pakistan’s claim.

India had challenged GBP 35 million in a bank account in the name of the High Commissioner of Pakistan on 20th September 1948. The money was transferred from Nizam-e-Hyderabad by an agent for the newly formed Pakistan. However, the Nizam of Hyderabad, which later became part of India, claimed that the money transfer was done without his authority and sought return of the entire amount.

Interestingly, the same court in March 2015 had directed Pakistan to pay 1,50,000 Pounds to India as legal fees in the 67-year-old Hyderabad Funds case involving the Nizam’s money, while terming Pakistan’s behaviour as “unreasonable”.

“In the pre-trial judgement in a case pertaining to the monies from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad lying in a UK bank since late 1940s, an English court has dismissed Pakistan’s application invoking limitation against India’s claim to the monies. The judgement states that Pakistan’s application for summary disposal of the claim in her favour must fail. The costs for the failure of this application of Pakistan will be awarded to India. The legal action in the matter, currently sub-judice, was initiated by Pakistan in 2013. Pakistan’s subsequent application for discontinuance of the case was rejected by the same court in 2015. India was also awarded substantial costs against Pakistan at that stage,” official spokerson for Ministry of External Affairs Vikas Swarup said on Tuesday.

However, Pak spokesperson Nafees Zakaria said: “The Judge accepted that there was good evidence supporting Pakistan’s claim to the monies, which needed to be fully considered at a trial.”