Categories
India News Interview Lite Blogs

‘Strict law needed to combat judicial corruption’: Zaiwalla

‘To immunize the Indian judicial system from corruption Indian Parliament should pass strict criminal law to punish those who are part of the corruption’

Dr Sarosh Zaiwalla founded Zaiwalla & Co in London in 1982. It is the first English solicitors firm in the one “Square Mile” financial and commercial district of the City of London started by a solicitor from India. The firm is internationally known for turning around difficult cases and achieving success where there is a large amount and important legal issues at stake.

In 1983, the firm obtained India’s first ever success in the House of Lords on an issue involving compound interest. This was a test case which resulted in a saving of over US$5 million for India, at a time when India was undergoing a foreign exchange crunch. Over the years Sarosh has been involved in over 1200 International Arbitrations in London and worldwide. He has acted for many prestigious clients including the President of India, China National Petroleum Corporation, NIDC of Iran and International Public Corporations. He also successfully handled the libel proceedings in the Bachchans Bofors case. Zaiwalla & Co succeeded for Bank Mellat of Iran in the UK Supreme Court challenging the listing of the bank under Iran’s Nuclear Proliferation Sanctions and thereafter successfully obtained a large damages claim for the bank against the UK Government. At present, the firm is acting for the Central Bank of Venezuela against the Bank of England for the return of 31 tons of gold valued at US$2.1 billion which Venezuela had deposited with the Bank of England in its safety deposit vaults.  

In 2019, at the invitation of Harper Collins India, Zaiwalla authored his first memoir titled ‘Honour Bound – Adventures of an Indian Lawyer in the English Courts’. The book has been read all over the world and details Mr Zaiwalla’s remarkable legal career and most interesting cases throughout the years. It also sets out the story of Zaiwalla’s contribution to the development of diversity in London, which has proved to be of great significance given the recent appointment of the first British Asian Prime Minister in the UK.  In September 2022, Mr Zaiwalla was invited to Ulaanbaatar by the Mongolian Government to launch the Mongolian language edition of his book. During his visit to Mongolia, Sarosh was awarded by Mongolia’s Ministry of Law & Justice a Medal of Honour on behalf of the Mongolian Government for having succeeded for a Mongolian State organisation, Erdenet Mining Corporation, recovering a debt owed of US$20 million against the Kazakhstan Government.

From 1990 to 2002, Mr Zaiwalla was a member of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC Paris where he held India’s seat for 3 terms of 4 years. In October 2002, Mr Zaiwalla was awarded with India’s Annual National Law Day by the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Vajpayee, for his outstanding contribution to the field of International Arbitration Law.   In May 2004, Mr Zaiwalla had the honour to be personally asked by His Holiness the Dalai Lama to facilitate a dialogue with the Government of the People’s Republic of China with a view to finding a peaceful resolution relating to Tibet. In October 2007, Mr Zaiwalla was invited by the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to New York for an extensive one-to-one consultation on issues related to World Order.

Sarosh Zaiwalla

Mr Zaiwalla has undertaken several overseas visits as part of the business delegation accompanying the UK Government Ministers and the Lord Mayor of the City of London. 

The Times named Mr Zaiwalla as ‘Lawyer of the Week’ in 2020 for his success in the Court of Appeal in favour of their client, the Central Bank of Venezuela, against the Bank of England. This ongoing case raises important questions of law and has been covered widely in the media.  

In an interview with Asian Lite’s Abhish K. Bose he reflects on a number of questions ranging from his experience as a lawyer in the English Courts to the alleged incident of  corruption in the Kerala High Court. 

Excerpts from the interview 

Abhish K. Bose: Your growth as an Indian lawyer finding success in the English courts was a rare feat. You recalled that there were racial tensions which often obstructed your way in the beginning of your career.  How different is the scenario now? Is it still the same or has it mellowed a lot?

Zaiwallaa:  Indeed there were racial barriers in the beginning of my career in London, however as Britain is a fair society which strictly follows the Rule of Law, these barriers were not insurmountable, if handled with understanding and care. I recognised early on an important factor. Unlike the USA, which is a country of immigrants, the UK is a country of natives and I have to respect the natives customs and traits followed in both friendship and commercial relationships. In England, I have found through experience that so long as one maintains a decorum of courtesy and honesty, one gets a corresponding helpful response in return. This I found applied at all levels, from men on the street to the judiciary and political leaders. Nowadays the UK is much more open and diverse, and the appointment of the first Asian Prime Minister with an Indian background is a wonderful illustration of the growth the United Kingdom has achieved and is a very encourage step towards the ‘One World, One Mankind’ principle.  

Abhish K. Bose:   What are the qualitative differences manifested in the English legal system compared to the Indian legal system? Can Indian legal system imbibe from the British system at a phase of significant decadence in the Indian system and when allegations of cooption to the governmental pressures sprung up even at the pronouncement of verdicts? 

Zaiwalla: The Indian legal system followed the English legal system as it was to apply to the British colonies at that time, therefore making it a non-flexible system in the best interest of the British empire. I have found Judges in the British legal system to look at legal issues in more real and practical terms and interpret the law which would meet the ends of justice. As I have never practiced in the Indian Court I am not in a position to compare Indian Judges to English Judges but I can say with confidence that the English Judges’ approach to law is that ‘law is for justice and not justice for law’. The English common law approach allows the court to follow this. In my 41 years of experience before the English Court, I have found the Judges to be strictly honest and upright in considering the verdict without any bias to the Government and/or any other institutions. I must also add that I have never come across a single instance where any of the English Judges had subjected to Government pressure. The latest example of this is the famous challenging of the Parliament Resolution by Prime Minister Boris Johnson relating to the issue of the UK’s exit from the EU. In that case, the Government lost the verdict by 11-0 before the UK Supreme Court.  

Supreme Court.

Abhish K. Bose: You have represented giant corporations and heads of governments across the globe. What are the ethical  yardsticks that you embrace while representing those parties? 

Zaiwalla: In representing these parties the ethical yardsticks which I have adopted is to act with full integrity, trustworthiness, and fairness. However important my clients are, I would never consider putting forward misleading facts on their behalf. There have been multiple occasions where I have withdrawn on an existing client case because I have found the clients evidence to be dishonestly obtained, or the client has admitted unlawful conduct.

Abhish K. Bose: As a lawyer who spend a major portion of your life and career in UK how do you consider the attitude of the British political leadership towards India.  With the ascendancy of Rishi Sunak as PM is there any expressed improvement in their attitude towards India? 

Zaiwalla:  As the world knows, in a democracy views of political leadership changes according to the party elected to power. This typically happens everywhere. Generally in today’s international politics, what matters is what is best for the economics of a country. From my experience, I can say that British political leadership towards India has been responsive and now that the Indian economy has grown (and is likely to be the 5th biggest economy in the world very soon), British political leadership would look at India in a way more favourable than ever before. In today’s world, it is all about internal economics when it comes to the question of foreign policy.  

Abhish K. Bose: In your memoir’ Honour Bound – Adventures of an Indian lawyer in the English Courts’   published in 2020  you revealed about the dealings from businessman Ajitabh Bachchan, whom you represented in a libel case in London in connection with the alleged Bofors kick back. You claimed that you know the source of the money which Ajithabh invested in the shipping business on your behalf, however, you did not divulged it in your memoir. Could you explain whose money it was and how that episode came to an end?

To be honest, I really never knew the source of the money which Ajitabh had said to be invested in a shipping business on my behalf. It would be wrong for me to guess. I was never directly told the source of the money. I have described how this episode ended in my memoir ‘Honour Bound – Adventures of an Indian Lawyer in the English Courts’, which has been published by Harper Collins.

Abhish K. Bose:  In a shocking incident at the Kerala High Court, a lawyer allegedly received bribes from accused persons for getting favourable verdicts over the enticement that the money is to be given to the judges handling the cases. Similar incidents indicates the prevalence of corruption in judiciary.  How can the Indian judicial system be immunized from corruption? 

Zaiwalla: Corruption in judiciary is outrageous and this incident in the Kerala High Court needs to be condemned. I have never come across any suggestion of corruption in respect of English Judges at any level. The obvious way to immunize the Indian judicial system from corruption is for the Indian Parliament to pass strict criminal law to punish not only the Judges involved, but also the interlocutrices who play any part in the corruption process with strict prison sentences and confiscation of assets bought through corrupt funds.

Abhish K. Bose:  The legal proceedings in the Enrica Lexie case in which two Italian marine officers allegedly shot down two Kerala based fishermen culminated without convicting the marines and the Court in Rome as well as the Supreme Court of India quashed the case thereby stipulating to provide monetary compensation. As an international arbitrator do you think whether the case was handled judiciously by the Indian authorities in which the lives of two of its citizens were claimed?

Zaiwalla:  I am of the view that the decision of the court in Rome, as well as the Supreme Court of India, was correct and fair. Under criminal law, there must be ‘mens rea’, meaning a guilty mind for a crime having said to be committed. If the shooting of the Kerala fisherman was the result of a misconceived danger on part of the Italian marine officers, then one cannot say that ‘mens rea’ existed in these circumstances to find them guilty of a criminal conduct.

Italian marines Massimiliano Latorre (L) and Salvatore Girone (R) accused of killing two Indian fishermen in 2012 during an anti-piracy mission. (File Photo: IANS)

Abhish K. Bose: Mass migration is the rule of the day of the contemporary world as huge populations across the globe are looking forward to exploit its possibilities. What are the existing legal protections for the migrants in UK?  

Zaiwalla: In so far as legal method of immigration is concerned, there is a legal procedure for a person to enter and live in the UK. In the UK the principle of the Rule of Law is strictly adhered to by the Courts and its citizens. For any foreign passport holder to enter the UK without immigration clearance would be unlawful and therefore the British Government is bound to take steps to prevent such unlawful immigration. Britain is a signatory to the United Conventions of Human Rights which requires countries to allow refugees to be granted asylum, but this only applies to those who are not refugees by choice but those who lose their homes and belongings because of war or national calamities which makes it virtually impossible for them to stay in the their home countries.

ALSO READ: Interview on Communist Movement in India

Categories
Asia News India News World News

  Zaiwalla & Co Celebrates 40th anniversary

London-based Law firm which won several international arbitration cases and saved Amitabh Bachchan in the Bofors case marks 40th anniversary … A special report by Ashis Ray

Zaiwalla & Co, the first Indian-owned City of London solicitors, marked the 40th anniversary of their formation at a packed and elegant reception at London’s distinguished Victoria and Albert Museum.

Established by Mumbai-born Sarosh Zaiwalla, in 1990, the firm shot to fame in India when acting on behalf of filmstar Amitabh Bachchan and his brother Ajitabh in a suit connected with the Bofors arms controversy at the London High Court.

Sarosh_Zaiwalla

 A Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter had reported that the Bachchans, friends of the then prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, received unlawful money in the deal to buy field guns for the Indian Army from AB Bofors, a Swedish manufacturer. The Bachchans sued the publication for defamation. 

 After a dramatic hearing, the Bachchans won, thereby not just exonerating themselves, but Gandhi, who on news media had been virtually accused of corruption or at least being aware of wrongdoing. He denied the charge and the matter never came to court, before being abandoned by the BJP-led government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Gandhi was killed by a Sri Lankan Tamil suicide bomber in 1991.

 More recently, Zaiwalla & Co has been in the news taking up cudgels for the Venezuelan central bank against its British counterpart the Bank of England (BoE) to reclaim $1.95 billion worth of gold deposited with the latter. The dispute will be heard on appeal by Zaiwalla in the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court. India, too, has gold in safekeeping with the BoE.     

 Gopi Hinduja, co-chairman of the London-based Hinduja Group, who 32 years ago asked Zaiwalla to represent the Bachchans, was the chief guest at the reception. Speaking at the function, he said: “The FTA (free trade agreement being negotiated between Britain and India) will make it very easy for Indian law firms to work here as well as British law firms to work in India.”

 Among the many prominent figures who attended the celebration the one who cased the most flutter was Indian businessman Vijay Mallya, who is fighting against extradition sought by the Narendra Modi government to India. He claimed his now defunct Kingfisher Airline – whose failure got him into difficulty – has repaid more than it owed Indian banks as a result of Indian law enforcement agencies auctioning his assets in India.

Amitabh Bachchan greets fans at Jalsa
Categories
Asia News UK News World News

Mongolia honours Sarosh Zaiwalla

 The medal was presented to Mr Zaiwalla at the offices of the Mongolian Justice Ministry by Mongolia’s Vice Minister of Justice & Home Affairs, Ms Solongoo Bayarsaikhan. The Honour was received in recognition for Zaiwalla & Co having successfully recovered a USD$20 million claim for Mongolia against Kazakhstan in an English court. The full claim was paid by Kazakhstan before the Court of Appeal hearing. Mr Zaiwalla proudly accepted the honour on behalf of the firm, Zaiwalla & Co.

London-based eminent solicitor Sarosh Zaiwalla has been awarded Medal of Honour by Mongolian Government for his skill as an international lawyer. Mr Zaiwalla received the honour at an event at Ulaanbaatar.

He received a personal invitation from Mongolia’s former Minister of Finance and Chief of Office to the President of Mongolia, Mr Puntsag Tsagaan for the launch of the Mongolian edition of his book, “Honour Bound: Adventures of an Indian Lawyer in the English Courts.”

The launch was held at the oldest educational institution, the University of Finance & Economics of Mongolia (UFE) and was attended by over 50 eminent Mongolian personalities and law and economic students including, Mr Puntsag Tsagaan, and former Prime Minister’s Mr Amarjargal and Mr Rinchinnyam.

Mr Sarosh Zaiwalla with Mongolia’s Vice Minister of Justice & Home Affairs, Ms Solongoo Bayarsaikhan at Mongolian Justice Ministry Office

During this visit, Sarosh was invited by Mongolia’s Ministry of Law & Justice to receive a Medal of Honour on behalf of the Mongolian Government as one of the world’s top lawyers, who had also served Mongolia well.

 The medal was presented to Mr Zaiwalla at the offices of the Mongolian Justice Ministry by Mongolia’s Vice Minister of Justice & Home Affairs, Ms Solongoo Bayarsaikhan. The Honour was received in recognition for Zaiwalla & Co having successfully recovered a USD$20 million claim for Mongolia against Kazakhstan in an English court. The full claim was paid by Kazakhstan before the Court of Appeal hearing. Mr Zaiwalla proudly accepted the honour on behalf of the firm, Zaiwalla & Co.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Amarsaikhan Sainbuyan, hosted a private dinner for Sarosh and his team at Government Palace where they were given a private performance of Mongolia’s most famous artistry. A special meeting was also held at Parliament Building with former Prime Minister, Mr Batbold Sukhbaataar. Mr Batbold is currently the Head of the Special Supervision Subcommittee and Member of Parliament. Mr Batbold appreciated the services rendered by Zaiwalla & Co to Mongolia.

Sarosh Zaiwalla awarded Medal of Honour by Mongolian Government for his skill as an international lawyer

During this visit to Mongolia, Sarosh had the pleasure of being invited to join various receptions and expos organised by Achit lkht LLC (Mongolia’s largest hydrometallurgical plant) and Steppe Holding (Mongolia’s largest copper producers) in honour of the 100th Anniversary of the Mining Industry of Mongolia, at which Sarosh had the honour of being formally introduced to the Prime Minister of Mongolia and distinguished Ambassadors to Mongolia.

Sarosh Zaiwalla founded Zaiwalla & Co in April 1982, in the heart of legal London. With over 40 years’ experience, Sarosh has been involved in over 1200 International Energy, Maritime and Construction Arbitrations in London and globally.

Zaiwalla & Co is a specialist international arbitration and litigation law firm based in London. The firm regularly acts for international clients on high-value, politically delicate disputes.

Categories
-Top News Interview London News

‘There is no justification for the
delay to settle legitimate debt’

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is back in Britain after six-year detention in Iran, she became a pawn in the hands of Iranian authorities to retrieve their £400 million debt from Britain. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss confirmed the payment to Iran to settle a ‘legitimate debt’ on the same day Nazanin was released from Iran. The foreign secretary blamed US sanctions on Iran for the delay. Is that true?

Nazanin blamed five foreign secretaries to take a decision on a dispute which cost her freedom for six years. She was forced to stay away from her daughter Gabriella and her husband. Who is to be blamed for this fiasco? London Daily’s Azeez Anasudhin meets Sarosh Zaiwalla, senior partner at Zaiwalla, to find some answers. Excerpts: 

What is your take on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release from Iran after six years’ detention?

I wholeheartedly welcome Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release from her long detention in Iran as I am sure does everyone in the UK. In addition to her physical suffering, she must have suffered enormous emotional pain from being away from her husband and her daughter for a long period. I wish her and her family all the very best. This is a piece of very good news at a time that we all needed it.

News agencies are saying the UK paid £380 million to secure freedom for Nazanin. Did the Iranians use Nazanin as a bargaining chip to secure the old payment to procure Chieftain tanks from the UK?

These reports are numerous and consistent to be sure. Many reputed journalists appear to be convinced this was the case. However, without seeing the evidence behind the reports I cannot say for sure.

The fact is that the British government was under a legal obligation to return the advance payment made by Iran in the 1970s for the purchase and delivery of Chieftain tanks. There is no dispute that the UK did not deliver those tanks in the wake of the Iranian revolution in 1979, and at least since the result of an international arbitration award in 2002. There is no doubt about the UK’s liability to pay the money to Iran if the government wants to pay.

It took six years to secure the release of Nazanin. The delay took a great toll on her family. The blame lies squarely on the government. Are they responsible to pay compensation for Nazanin’s sufferings?

The toll on Nazanin and her family was great. However, it is difficult to argue that the blame lies squarely with the UK government. It is of course true that they did not pay money that was owed to Iran. The current reports also suggest that the government’s argument that it could not pay the money because of sanctions may be questionable. However, it is the Iranian government who imprisoned her and, if the reports are true, effectively held her hostage for ransom. There also remains the question that Nazanin was convicted by an Iranian court for a crime which in all probability she did not commit.

I would be wary of having to argue that Nazanin’s imprisonment was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the failure to pay the debt, which is normally required to be established if a compensation claim is to be made. Of course, ultimately I cannot say at this stage whether or not the UK government would be held liable to compensate the Zaghari-Ratcliffe family for their suffering. I would say it is very unlikely the government will admit any sort of liability, but that does not mean it cannot take steps, including by paying money, to ensure that the family are put in as secure a position as possible now that Nazanin is back.

Is there any international law to prevent similar detentions?

There is no settled law that governs this question because it is simply too big a question. At heart, this would relate to the question of when a state may arrest a holder of a foreign passport for offences allegedly committed in that state’s territory. In principle, any state has the ability to do justice in its own way where an offence is said to have been committed within its territory and the accused is also within that territory.

There is international law that is designed to blocks states from arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning people without due process or fair trials. However, the enforcement of that law against a sovereign country from the outside is challenging, even in the most flagrant circumstances.

That is in my view the main reason why situations like Nazanin’s need to be handled at an international diplomatic level rather than adopting a strictly legal approach.

Are you happy with the way Prime Minister Boris Johnson handled this issue?

The most important thing right now is that the UK government has, it seems, finally paid the debt owed to Iran, and clearly, Nazanin has been released. Given that previous governments going back to 1979 have refused to pay, I believe credit should certainly be given to Prime Minister Boris Johnson for finding a way to pay the debt due to Iran. As matters stand however I have not seen any evidence of a key change in circumstances which means that the money which is not going to be paid could not have been paid in 2016 when Nazanin was detained.

I understand that it may be said this was the equivalent of paying a ransom to a kidnapper, however, the facts are that the money was actually a legally payable debt, and the UK has now decided to pay it. As such it seems it may have been possible to spare Nazanin her whole ordeal.

The British government blamed US sanctions for delaying the settlement of the legitimate debt. What’s your take on this?

The UK’s excuse for non-payment was that US sanctions on Iran and in particular the suspension of banking services to Iran prevented the payment. However, from my experience, this does not hold water. The UK government did make payment of very a large amount of money to Iran in respect of agreed damages in the case of Bank Mellat of Iran, in which my firm Zaiwalla & Co had acted for Bank Mellat.

Bank Mellat’s claim was settled following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that the UK Government had acted both irrationally and unlawfully by including Bank Mellat as a named target of sanctions to prevent nuclear proliferation. In light of that, the UK could well have paid in the same way the debt owed to Iran in respect of these undelivered tanks. I understand that the USA has settled similar sorts of debts owed to Iran by flying cash to Iran. The debt could also theoretically have been settled by providing commodities and even medicine.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is saying the debt refund will be used for humanitarian projects. Can we trust Iranians? If they are not committing to the promise, what will be the next course of action?

Until I have seen the terms of any agreement or undertaking by the Iranian government I cannot comment on whether it will be binding, nor whether it would be honoured. On the face of things, Iran was owed this debt and should be entitled to use the money however it wishes.

ALSO READ-London adds steel to stem terror attacks