The Settlement of ‘Non-Execution of Court-Judgments, Contempt of Courts, Embezzlement of Funds, Defrauding’ and other Offenses in UAE

Kochi, 12th May, 2018

Download the Authentic Mail to the Mission in Abu Dhabi, in regards with the “Settlement of ‘Non-Execution of Court-Judgments, Contempt of Courts, Embezzlement of Funds, Defrauding’ and other Offenses in UAE”, in PDF (Size: 420 kb)

From

Panikkaveetil K. Jabir (Petitioner)
501, Metro Plaza Building, Market Road,
Near High Court, Kochi, Kerala Pin. 682 018.

To

Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
First Secretary (Community Affairs and Economic & Commerce),
Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Ref. No.G/202/05/2017 dated 29-4-2018   &  Ref. No. G-202/05/2017 Dated 02/04/2018

Sub. The Settlement of ‘Non-Execution of Court-Judgments, Contempt of Courts, Embezzlement of Funds, Defrauding’ and other Offenses in UAE

Respected Sir,

The Embassy can persuade UAE to settle this case of ‘Non-Execution of a set of UAE Court-Judgments, the guilty of Contempt of Courts, Embezzlement of Funds, Defrauding’ and other offenses pending before the Indian Authorities and UAE itself for about quarter of a century.

Mission in Abu Dhabi may suggest a settlement on the terms herein below, suggested tentatively

(a) an interim relief, followed by (b) final settlement:

The action required by the Mission is initially to bring the offenders before justice, for the damages the Petitioner, an Abu Dhabi based Indian Investor, contractor and supplier, has sustained under the various counts including repeated defrauding of the ‘Judgement Creditor’, brutal tortures, extortion, framing him false case and arbitrary detention, violating ‘Four Judgments of the UAE Courts’ in his favour, the guilty of ‘Contempt of Courts and the like.

Allow the Petitioner (Judgement Creditor) all the benefits ordered therein, which he had been deprived unjustly and illegally, including making the best of all his lost business assets and pay him the interim relief pending final settlement of the case.

The petitioner suggests:

(a) Interim Relief – an immediate payment

Having regard to the serious nature of the losses and injuries inflicted upon the Petitioner and resultant deprivation of his assets and other rights and privileges, damages suffered from physical and psychological pain as result of the unjust and illegal actions of the authorities etc., he is entitled to an interim relief, on urgent basis, fixed at 120 million US Dollars [INR.782 crore].

(b) Final Settlement – full payment

Compensation for violation of Human Rights, like illegal incarceration, inhuman tortures (even like ruthless beating, pulling off his nails, torturing his brother in front of him etc.) violation of disobeying the Judicial verdicts of Courts in UAE, on four different types and stages, committed acts such as fraud in connection with Petitioner’s deportation denying his property, fundamental rights and grossly offending the values of his human dignity, a continuing offence of prolonging the agony and anguish of the Petitioner now exceeding 22 years.

The right to live with dignity and personal liberty are guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21 which reads as follows:- ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law’.

There cannot be any doubt or dispute about the averments of the ‘Judgment Creditor’, all the claims he had made, as they are fully supported by the orders of Courts both the countries, and the official documents of the governments of India and UAE. The restoration of business loss, the loss of assets and investments of the petitioner while he was under arbitrary detention in UAE, was an active part of the Court Judgments, which the petitioner had been deprived unjustly and illegally.

The Petitioner, as a Judgment Creditor, is legally entitled for his business assets, real estate investments left behind in the UAE when he was fraudulently deported; and the business profits and gains and its market value he would have earned, as well as other expenses for all these years that followed.  This deprivation of property of the Petitioner will tantamount to violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

There was not merely criminal failure on the part of the authorities in the non-implementation of a set of Judgements of the Court of Law (in the case relating to aggravated assault, burglary etc.).  The authorities are also liable to compensate the petitioner, who had always remained a ‘non-offender’ by all means (A declaration in the final Judgment by the Apex Court of UAE reads as follows:- ‘All the evidences indicates to the properness of the behaviour of the Petitioner’) for his intangible injuries as damages suffered from physical and psychological pain as a result of the unjust and illegal actions of the UAE authorities.

The compensation due to him, would be very substantial, aggregating to many hundred millions of US Dollars. The Petitioner would be only happy in the circumstances, for a settlement by known legal methods of arbitration by a mutually agreed authority or approaching the ‘International Court of Justice’ (ICJ) for advisory opinions as regards to the quantum of compensation.

The UAE is liable to pay the petitioner for all the natural and direct consequences of its wrongful act. Apart from actual loss and exemplary damages, he is entitled to get compensatory damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, aggravated damages for pain and sufferings, violation of his dignity, respect and rights,  as detailed in the representation filed before the Government of India, as well as to the UAE Ambassador to India, dated 28th Feb, 2018.

This is a racially motivated hate crime with assignments of tasks such as extortion, outright fraud etc., by ‘higher officials of Abu Dhabi’, UAE to stop an ‘execution of a Decree’ awarded by the Civil Court on an Apartment Tower contract in 1995 against a local Emirati (an associate of ‘Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan’).

The Petitioner was entirely involved as an instrumental part of the UAE’s progressing economy [1979 – 1996] with an enviable business empire of Engineering, Trading & General Contracting, 3 different establishments with all sort of infrastructure including warehouses, fully equipped Electro-mechanical lab, workshop, staff quarters and other real estate investments etc., worth US$100 million apart from work contracts and reputation, with his prime years, commanding respect of many of his clients and well wishers in the region.

The offenders were caught red-handed by the Petitioner while committing burglary at his office in day light. The policemen who came responding to the alert of the Petitioner, unjustifiably protected the trespassers who were the  law breakers and jointly attacked the petitioner terribly, and robbed of money and valuables worth .4 million US Dollars, at the instance of the local Emirati for getting illegal gains and to circumvent the Court’s order in force against him.

The Petitioner and his younger brother were literally kidnapped from their office by the callous policemen and was kept them isolated in hellholes in different detention centers, before taking him to the notorious Al Wathba Central Prison, and brutally tortured and traumatized. He was continued under detention arbitrarily under squalid conditions, often solitary confinement, in order to humiliate or degrade him and was inaccessible by any of his staff or counsels and were held as a shield against their aggravated crimes.

As a police state,  under a military ruler, the state police struggled hard almost seven months to fabricate false evidence, after framing charges against the Petitioner while keeping him incarcerated, but they completely failed in front of Jurors. The police dropped charges framed against the Petitioner and plead guilty in the Legal Court after an investigation orders passed against Abu Dhabi policemen.

The investigation order was also approved by the highest Appellate Full-Court. The conduct of the Prosecutor too was condemned. Then followed several other Court Judgments and orders in absolute favour of the petitioner including the order for immediate release of petitioner with compensation for all his sufferings illegally inflicted upon him and to restore other rights and privileges.

The enforcement of a Judgment is regarded as an integral part of the fundamental Human Right to a fair trial in a reasonable time. That has been violated. Worst still, the debtor, the UAE ruler, bypassed all the laws to commit the offense of defrauding the Judgment Creditor in the most cruel and diabolical manner, by deporting him from UAE, thus to deny him the fruits of the decrees obtained by him, forced him to leave behind his well established three business concerns, real estate properties and other investments, images and reputation in the UAE, hard earned by his blood and sweat and valuable expertise in profession.

Two Judicial Orders were also passed by the High Court of Delhi to the Government of India (after approaching the Supreme Court) to the enforcement of UAE Judgments. The Government of India has colluded with UAE and betrayed, mentally tortured and abandoned the ‘Judgment Creditor’ for the last 22 years that followed, only to deny him justice, thus, defaming the Judicial organs of both the countries.

The Embassy is duty bound to act in accordance with the Constitution, laws, generally accepted rules of international law and ratified international treaties such as Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) 1963 &  Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) 1961.

We were over-excited and rather too fast to support Devyani Khobragade, an Indian diplomat, indicted for visa fraud in the U.S. Court and we were on the same footing to support Kulbhushan Jadhav, an ex-Naval officer, convicted in a Pak Military Court on the charge of spying.

As you know, Khobragade’s arrest in U.S. that led to a diplomatic standoff between the two nations. All activities were interrupted or turned upside down, as a world we have never seen it before. Even bulldozers were pressed into service to remove security barriers outside the US Embassy in Delhi.

In Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case, India has moved the ICJ under Article 36(1) of the Court’s statute. This provision is independent of the compulsory jurisdiction norm and relies on treaties in which both countries accept the Court’s jurisdiction.

It is inconceivable that when anti-social elements hatch a conspiracy and attempt virtual destruction of a continued life, the violators of law in the State are protected by the UAE administration. The situation cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed by a responsible and civilized Governments in India, when the facts and files establish such wanton violations of Human Rights against a citizen. The injustices and cruelties by the UAE administration, against the ‘Judgment Creditor’, remains a serious case with highest credibility over any other case in India for the World Court.

‘The US Authority was keen and honest to take up the case of its citizen with the UAE government and the claim was settled just in 3 years’. The U.S. Human Rights Lawsuit against Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan is a living example of successful foreign relations among responsible States who value the dignity of its citizens’.

On the other hand, the Government of India did an unpardonable mistake of dragging the most legitimate case of an Indian investor and trader in UAE for a long period of 22 years to date, despite a portfolio of six legal judgments from different Courts against the perpetrators, the Executive of Abu Dhabi, UAE, who are also accountable for the guilty of ‘Contempt of Courts’.

The Embassy may indicate to UAE that the publication of details of violation of Investor’s Rights in UAE, concern over the disregard for Court orders, contempt of Court, defrauding Judgment creditors etc., will undoubtedly hamper UAE’s goal to attract foreign direct investments (FDI), further operation of ‘quality investing’ in India, particularly having regard to the force of social media (Utmost restraint has been practiced by the petitioner hitherto).

The Embassy can persuade UAE to settle the matter amicably, without any delay whatever. The time is extended for reaching an amicable settlement with UAE or at least an interim payment till 31-05-2018.

All the relevant records had been made available to the Govt. of India, many times, the latest being on 12th April, 2018, however, a set of those documents are attached herewith afresh, for your ready reference.

The petitioner, the undersigned, remain yours in good faith,

Thanking you,

Yours truly,
Panikkaveettil K. Jabir (Petitioner)

Encl:

Your letter dated 29-04-2018 with all relevant documents

Copy to:

Mr. Bimal Saigal,
Consultant (Gulf), The Ministry of External Affairs,
Patiala House, New Delhi – 110 001.

CASE [TIMELINE] EXHIBITS: http://www.uae.jabir.net/

Unique is the case of ‘Judgment Creditor’; disgracefully the perpetrator is the ‘Executive Branch of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates’

“Support the Judgment Creditor to strengthen the Integrity of the Judiciary and people’s confidence in our Justice System”. The Judgment Creditor, who obtained four consecutive Judgments against ‘Willful Defaulters’ is very unique in all respects. [White Paper released by ‘Jabir P’, the ‘Judgment Creditor’]

The Judgment Creditor approached various ‘Institutions’ [a brief-list is given below] narrating his ‘traumatic experiences’ and a life of hardship in order to enforce the portfolio of Judgments from the Courts of Abu Dhabi, UAE. “If these ‘institutions’ are not worthy of their names and status, what is the relevance of their existence and how they could be classified worthy?”

The Judgment Creditor is a survivor victim of the ‘cruelest torture’, unethical and inhuman treatments of Abu Dhabi executive branch. In the process, he was betrayed by the ‘UAE Administration’ and the ‘Government of India’ alike at every stage. He lost all precious things in life including his dignity, health and wealth.

The adamant nature of the ‘Judgment Debtor’, the ‘Administration of UAE’, in not executing the Portfolios of Judgments of the Higher Courts of that very Country is cowardice, illegal and a threat and disgrace to the ‘Judicial System of the UAE’ and the entire law-abiding human community of the world. Appropriate action has to be initiated by the authorities concerned at this later stage to reach Justice to the Judgment Creditor.

The Case of the Judgment Creditor

The case of the Judgment Creditor, an Indian businessman and investor at Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., is a unique-one in all respects. It was a story of frightening, blatant violation of the ‘Law’ and the most shocking travesty of ‘Constitution’ of the United Arab Emirates to which the victim was exposed to. The investor was threatened of dire consequences if he did not agree to withdraw a civil suit that he brought against his Emirati business partner. The investor did not accede to the extortion threats of some corrupt local police officials of the Emirate. Due to the seriousness of the case, the Civil Court of Abu Dhabi was pleased to issue an Interim Decision and Order in favour of the investor.

In total negation of the judicial order, the accused in collusion with the local police attacked the Judgment Creditor at his office; robbed of cash and valuables to force him to withdraw the lawsuit. He sought intervention from the police. The police did come, but instead of helping him, he was shackled and literally dragged out of the office and on through the street in the presence of known friends and bystanders.

The Judgment Creditor had to undergo extremes of ‘cruel torture‘, inflicted permanent physical damage and humiliation from Abu Dhabi Police which no human being can withstand. He was confined to a detention center and brutally tortured and later taken to ‘Central Prison’. These painful incidents totally destroyed the life of the Judgment Creditor in all respects. The ‘Duty and Responsibility’ of the authority to protect a Judgment Creditor against the threats of violence was left unattended.

It took six months thereafter, for the person to have his first appearance in Court. He was framed a false case, alleging “Using force against Government employee and assault”. The Trial Court of Abu Dhabi found that the victim is innocent, the case was wholly false, baseless and that it was fabricated by the police for personal gain. The Apex Court of Abu Dhabi found that the victim is innocent; rather ‘a martyr. The Court, comprising three-judge panel, praised the properness of the behavior and courage of victim. It further reiterated the condemnation of prosecution. The Court ordered immediate release of the victim, ‘restoration’ of victim’s dignity and compensation for all his losses while pronouncing a ‘Landmark Judgment’.

Customarily, in UAE, the debtors will be jailed until they have paid their debt. But the debtor in this ‘Landmark Judgment’ is the State of UAE whose Ruler at the time was none other than the late Sheikh Zayed himself, the Emir of Abu Dhabi and absolute Ruler of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). To avoid honoring its moral obligations and assigned responsibilities, the UAE Administration served an arrogant, ‘Despotic Order of Deportation’ against the Judgment Creditor.

The victim was then re-victimized in a manner that was extremely ‘libelous’ – by ‘false statements as if he was punished for a crime’ and deported back to India. The ‘Judgment Creditor’ was entitled to execution of the Judgments and levies the Police Department of Abu Dhabi, worth hundreds of million US Dollars as compensation to restore his life, his dignity and his ‘business establishments’.

The illegal deportation of an established businessman from the country that caused a situation associated with great pain, loss of dignity, loss of his entire business institutions etc. Flouting the orders of a judicial body is totally destructive of the ‘Rules of Law’ and Norms internationally upheld for safeguarding ‘Human Rights’; defrauding the Judgment Creditor is a personal and vindictive action and thus the Executive of the State was committed the most heinous, bizarre, and unspeakable crime.

The ‘legal fight for justice’ took in very many proceedings before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi. The subject matter of his grave complaints were adjudicated by the major Courts in India as well, which concurrently found the multiple forms of crime taking place under the UAE Administration such as fraud, forgery, extortion, torture and many other offences and subsequently secured two more Judgments from the High Court of Delhi in the year of 1997 and 2007 respectively. Despite the directive of the Delhi High Court, the Government of India has not discharged its duties as indicated in the judicial orders.

The anguish resultant from the deprivation of his establishments, assets and reputation earned exclusively through the untiring personal efforts of the Judgment Creditor for over 18 years of prime of his life, causes extreme mental depression which will virtually make his life only a vegetable existence. The UAE Government which owes huge debts to the Judgment Creditor by way of the non-execution of the Judgments of the Courts of Abu Dhabi in his favour, and for those unspeakable crimes committed against him, is also solely and exclusively responsible for the closure of “his various ‘business establishments’ in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates”.

The victim, the Judgment Creditor, has one demand: The Government of India should consider taking the necessary steps to execute the Judgments passed by the higher Courts of Abu Dhabi through all means, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on behalf of the Judgment Creditor and punish the guilty that was caused ‘Multi-billion Dollars’ worth of damage to the Judgment Creditor in order to strengthening the “Integrity of the Judiciary and people’s confidence in our ‘Justice System”.

The Judgment Creditor approached various ‘Institutions’ including the Government of India, the Higher Judiciary, the NHRC, respectable Ministers, Parliamentarians and even the ‘United Nations’ [a brief list is given below] for redressal narrating his traumatic experiences and a life of hardship of the Judgment Creditor, in order to enforce the portfolio of Judgments which he could secure from the Apex Court of Abu Dhabi on the basis of genuine facts and convincing evidences produced there in.

“If these ‘institutions’ are not worthy of their names and status, what is the relevance of their existence and how they could be classified worthy?”

Communications between the Judgment Creditor and the following Institutions:-

1) Reminder to the Government of India in relation with the Representation – July 16, 2014
http://www.legalcell.com/reminder-to-mea-india-gulf-division-july-16-2014.php

2) A self-contained explanatory representation to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi 28 October, 2013
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/self-explanatory-representation-10-10-13-of-petitioner-ministry-of-external-affairs.html

3) The second (important) reminder notice to the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/second-important-reminder-ministry-of-external-affairs-india-10-june-2013.html

4) Important Reminder Notice to the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/functions_diplomatic_missions_vienna_convention_uae_case.php

5) Shri Salman Khurshid, Hon’ble Minister for External Affairs, Government of India
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/indo_gulf_reparation_mechanisms_featured_responses.php

6) Representation for ‘Indo-Gulf Reparation Mechanisms’ to the Government of India sheds light on the active involvement of the ‘petitioner’ in the process of getting justice and its far-reaching consequences – dated 28-10-2013
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/representation_indo_gulf_reparation_mechanisms.php

7) Preface by Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, Former Justice, Supreme Court of India
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/preface_by_v_r_krishna_Iyer.php

8) Covering Letter by Mr. K. Sukumaran, Former Justice of Kerala and Bombay High Courts
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/covering_letter_by_justice_k_sukumaran.php

9) In the High Court of Delhi Case No: WP(C) NO.6149/1998 Date of Judgment 19/09/2007
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/jabir_vs_mea_india_19_09_2007_delhi_high_court.php

10) Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 25/06/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/ministry_external_affairs_01.html

11) Fax Message to UAE Ambassador, New Delhi, India 23/10/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/fax_message_uae_ambassador_delhi_1999.html

12) Non Resident Keralites’ Affairs (NORKA) Dept, Government of Kerala: 18/12/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/norka_amitabh_kant_1999.html

13) Amnesty International, Secretariat, London: 16/08/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/amnesty_international.html

14) The Minister of State, Foreign Affairs, UAE: 31/03/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/letter_to_foreign_affairs_uae_1999.html

15) NHRC To Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi: 25/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/nhrc_to_ministry_home_affairs_new_delhi_1998.html

16) Shri. I.K. Gujral, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha: 23/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/ik_gujral_parliament_1998.html

17) Ambassador of India, Abu Dhabi – United Arab Emirates: 21/09/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/ambassador_of_india_abu_dhabi.html

18) Shri. O.Rajagopal, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha: 19/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/o_rajagopal_parliament_1998.html

19) Smt. Vasundhara Raje, Minister of State for External Affairs: 16/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/vasundhara_raje_minister_external_affairs_1998.html

20) Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi, India: 15/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/prime_miniters_office_new_delhi_1998.html

21) Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 29/01/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/ministry_external_affairs_new_delhi_1998.html

22) Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer to National Human Rights Commission: 4/03/1997
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/justice_v_r_krishna_iyer_1997.html

23) Centre for Human Rights, United Nations [U.N.], Geneve: 28/02/1997
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/united_nations_office_geneva_1997.html

Appellate Civil/Criminal Jurisdiction, India & United Arab Emirates [UAE]

24) In the High Court of Delhi Case No: WP(C) NO.6149/1998 Date of Judgement 19/09/2007
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/jabir_vs_mea_india_19_09_2007_delhi_high_court.php

25) In the High Court of Delhi, Appellate Civil Jurisdiction: 20/11/1997
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/document_high_court_india.html

26) Key excerpts from the Judgment, Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE 1996
http://www.judgmentforsale.com/excerpts_judgment_summary_abudhabi_uae.html

27) Judgment in Arabic (Final, Legal Court of Appeal) of Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE
http://www.uaeleaks.com/judgment_final_arabic.html

28) Judgment in English (Final, Legal Court of Appeal) of Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE
http://www.uaeleaks.com/judgment_english_translation_01.html

Join Us: A Portfolio of UAE Judgments for Sale!
Funds are proposed to be raised by distribution of shares. “How do I become a voluntary contributor?”
http://www.legalcell.com/i-am-a-voluntary-contributor.php

ENFORCEMENT OF UAE JUDGMENTS:
TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION

Help us reach our goals by making a contribution to enforce the UAE Judgment(s)

The petitioner, who is a UAE torture survivor of inside the regime’s brutal prison in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates and most importantly a THREE times of ‘Judgment Creditor’ from the Legal Courts of Abu Dhabi, and still frustrated in the course of enforcing his judgments. He is now aimed to take his case to the next level of courts, the “International Court of Justice and Arbitral Tribunals”.

We need your active support to expose the debtors who hide Judicial decisions, commit fraud and other henious acts to avoid honoring their obligations. …
Please visit “A PORTFOLIO OF UAE JUDGMENTS FOR SALE!??

Agreement between the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Done at New Delhi on the 25th October, 1999.
July 10, 2012  New Delhi

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

 THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA

 AND

 THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

 ON

 JURIDICAL AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS FOR THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS, JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS, COMMISSIONS, EXECUTION OF JUDGEMENTS AND ARBITRAL AWARDS.

           The Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the United Arab Emirates, hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties;

          Being desirous of strengthening the bonds of friendship between the two countries and promoting fruitful cooperation in the judicial and legal spheres;

              Recognising the need to facilitate the widest measure of legal assistance in civil and commercial matters;

 HAVE AGREED as follows:

 SCOPE OF APPLICATION

 Article I

 1.         The Contracting Parties shall grant each other under this Agreement the widest measure of mutual legal assistance in civil and commercial matters in accordance with their national laws.

 2.             Assistance under this Agreement shall apply in:

             a.             service of summons and other judicial documents or processes;

             b.             the taking of evidence by means of Letters of Request or commissions;

             c.             execution of decrees, settlements and arbitral awards.

 3.         This Agreement shall be without prejudice; to any rights and obligations of the Parties pursuant to other treaties or arrangements.

 4.         This Agreement shall apply to any requests for mutual legal assistance relating to any civil or commercial matter arising either prior to or after its entry into force.

 CENTRAL AUTHORITIES AND AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS

 Article II

 1.             Requests for legal assistance shall be made through the Central Authorities of the Contracting Parties.

 2.          In the Republic of India the Central Authority is the Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs. In the United Arab Emirates the Central Authority is the Ministry of Justice.

 3.          Unless otherwise stated all the documents in connection with the legal assistance shall be officially signed by the Court under its seal which shall be authenticated by the Central Authority of the Requesting Party.

 4.          All requests and supporting documents shall be furnished in duplicate and shall be accompanied by a translation into one of the official languages of the Requested Party.

 SERVICE OF SUMMONS, JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS

 Article III

 1.             Summons and other judicial documents in the Contracting Parties shall be served:

              i.         in the case of India, through the courts in whose jurisdiction the

concerned persons reside;

              ii.         in the case of the United Arab Emirates, through the Ministry of

Justice.

 2.          The service of summons and other judicial documents shall be effected in accordance with the procedure provided for in the laws of the Requested State, or by a particular method desired by the Requesting State, unless such a method is incompatible with the law of the Requested State.

 3.          The summons and other judicial documents served in pursuance of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been served in the territory of the Requesting State.

 4.          The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not preclude the right of the Contracting Parties to effect such service, through its diplomatic or consular representatives, of summons and other judicial documents on its nationals residing in the territory of the other Contracting Party without application of any compulsion. Service in such cases shall entail no responsibility for the State of accreditation.

 5.             Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, summons and other judicial documents may be served directly through postal channels or by delivery to an addressee who accepts it voluntarily without application of any compulsion.

 6.          Any claim about the addressee being a national of the State in whose jurisdiction the service is to be effected shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State.

 Article IV

              The request for the service of summons and other ;judicial documents shall furnish all particulars concerning the name and title, place of residence or ;business of the addressee and a list of documents and papers to be served on that person. Where any special mode of service is desired, this should also be indicated in the request.

 Article V

 1.          A request for the service of summons and other judicial documents, which is in conformity with the provisions of this Agreement, may not be refused, unless the Requested Party considers that compliance with the request would infringe its sovereignty, security or public policy.

 2.             Service may not be refused on the ;ground that the request does not show sufficient legal grounds supporting the merits of the case.

 3.          Whenever the service is not effected, the Requested Party ;shall forthwith notify the Requesting Party of the reasons therefore.

 Article VI

 1.          The competent authority in the State requested shall serve the said documents and papers in accordance with the laws and rules applicable in this regard. No fees and costs may be levied for effecting such service.

 2.             Service may be effected in a special mode or manner specified by the Requesting Party, provided that it does not contravene the laws of the Requested State and further subject to the payment of costs of such special mode of service.

 Article VII

 1.          The powers of the competent authority in the Requested Party shall be limited to the delivery of the judicial documents and papers to the addressee.

 2.             Delivery shall be proved either by the signature of the addressee on the copy of the judicial document or paper, or by a certificate issued by the competent authority stating the name of the addressee, the date and mode of delivery, and where such delivery could not be effected, the reasons for such non-delivery.

 3.          a copy of the judicial documents or paper signed by the addressee or a certificate proving delivery shall be sent to the requesting authority through the Central Authority.

 TAKING OF EVIDENCE

 Article VIII

 1.          The judicial authorities of a Contracting Party may in accordance with the provisions of the law of that Party, request for the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters by means of Letters of Request addressed to the competent judicial authorities of the other Party.

2.          For the purpose of this Agreement, taking of evidence shall be deemed to cover:

            a.             the taking of the statements, on oath or otherwise, of a witness;

            b.             the submission of oath to a witness, with regard to any legal

   proceedings; and

              c.            the production, identification or examination of documents, records,

  samples relevant to the evidence requested and submitted by the person whose    evidence is taken under sub-paras (a) & (b) above.

 3.          A Letter of Request shall specify:

              a.             the judicial or other competent authority requesting the evidence;

              b.             the nature of the proceedings for which the evidence is required and all

    necessary information related thereto;

              c.             the names and addresses of the parties to the proceedings;

              d.             the evidence to be obtained; and

              e.             the names and addresses of the persons to be examined.

 4.          Where deemed necessary, the Letters of Request shall be accompanied by a list of interrogatories to be put to the witnesses or other persons involved or a statement of the subject matter about which they are to be examined and the documents relevant to such evidence or statement.

 5.          The Letters of Request shall indicate whether the evidence required is to be taken on oath or affirmation.

 Article IX

              The judicial proceedings performed by way of a Commission in pursuance of the provisions of this Agreement, shall have the same legal effect as if it  is performed by a competent authority in the Requesting State.

 Article X

 1.          The competent authorities of the Requested Party shall execute the Letters of Request in accordance with the provisions of its own laws and obtain the evidence required by applying the same methods and procedures as are permissible under its laws, including the same appropriate methods of compulsion.

 2.          The Requested Party shall follow any special method or procedure which has been expressly specified by the Letter of Request insofar as it is not incompatible with its laws and practices.

 3.          The Letters of Request shall be executed as expeditiously as possible.

 4.          The Requesting Party shall, if it so desires, be informed of the time when, and the place where, the proceedings will take place, in order that the parties concerned, and their representative, if any, may be present. This information shall be sent directly to the parties or their representatives when the Requesting Party so request.

 5.          When the Letter of Request has been executed, the necessary documents establishing its execution shall be sent to the Requesting Party.

 6.          In every instance where the Letter of Request is not executed in whole or in part, the Requesting Party shall be informed immediately and advised of the reasons.

 Article XI

              The execution of a Letter of Request may be refused only to the extent that;

              a.             The execution of the letter does not fall within the functions of the

    judiciary; or

              b.             the Requested State considers that its sovereignty or security would be

    prejudiced by its execution.

 2.             Execution may not be refused solely on the ground that under its internal law the Requested Party claims exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or that its internal law would not admit a right of action on it.

 Article XII

            The execution of Letters of Request and the taking of evidence by the Requested Party shall not give rise to any reimbursement of charges, expenses or costs, under whatever description by the Requesting Party. However, the Requested Party shall have the right to seek reimbursement of:

              a.         any expenses and charges paid to the ;witnesses, experts or

interpreters;

              b.         any costs incurred to secure the attendance of witnesses who have not

appeared voluntarily; and

              c.          any costs and expenses occasioned by the use of a special procedure on

request.

 Article XIII

              A diplomatic officer or Consular Agent of either Contracting Party may, in the territory of the other Party, take the evidence, without compulsion of nationals of the Party which he represents, in aid of judicial proceedings commenced in the courts of the Contracting Party which he; represents.

 Article XIV

              A person duly appointed as a Commissioner by the courts of either Contracting Party may, without compulsion, take evidence in the territory of the other Contracting Party, in accordance with the laws of that Party.

 Article XV

 1.          Each of the Contracting Parties shall, in accordance with its laws, recognise and/or execute decrees passed by the Courts of the other Contracting Party in civil, commercial and personal matters and by criminal courts in civil matters.

 2.          The term ‘Decree’ as used in this Agreement, whatever its designation, means any decision rendered in judicial proceedings by a competent court of the Contracting States.

 3.          This Agreement shall not apply to interim or provisional ;measures, except matters relating to taxation and allowances.

 Article XVI

              In disputes involving the question of capacity or status of a person, the courts of the State of which that person is a national at the time of institution of the suit shall be competent in those matters.

 Article XVII

              The courts of the State where immovable property is situated shall be competent to determine the rights connected with such property.

 Article XVIII

              In matters other than capacity or status of a person or immovable property, the courts of a Contracting Party shall have jurisdiction in the following cases:

              a.         If the defendant has his domicile or residence in the territory of that

State at the time of institution of the suit

              b.         or the defendant has at the time of institution of the suit, a place or a branch of                           commercial or industrial nature or works for gain in the territory of that state, and                           the suit relates to such activity

              c.          or by an express or implied agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant,                            the contractual obligations giving rise to the litigation are or have to be                            performed in the territory of that State

              e.           or the defendant expressly or impliedly submitted to the jurisdiction of the                             courts of that State, and the law of that State allows such submission

              f.            or any application for provisional measures, if the courts of such State are                             deemed competent to hear the principal dispute, by virtue of; the provisions of                             this Agreement.

Article XIX

              Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the courts of the State requested to recognise or execute a decree shall, when examining ;the ;grounds of jurisdiction exercised by the Courts of the other contracting State, be bound by the facts stated in that decree and on which jurisdiction is based, unless the said decree had been passed in absentia.

 Article XX

              A decree shall not be recognised or executed in the following cases:

              a.             if it is not conclusive and executable;

              b.            or it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

              c.             or it has not been given on ;the merits of the cases;

              d.            or it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an  incorrect view                              of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of the Requested Party in                              cases in which such law is applicable.

             e.            or the proceedings in which the judgement was obtained are opposed to natural                              justice;            

              f.             or it has been obtained by fraud;

              g.           or it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force, or is  contrary to                             the constitutional rules or the principles of public order  in the Requested State;

              h.           or it contravenes the rules concerning the legal representation or persons                              suffering from lack of capacity in the Requested State;

              i.            or it is passed in absentia and the defaulting party was not duly  summoned in                             accordance with the rules applicable in his country;

              j.             or the dispute in which the decree was passed is pending in a suit before one of                              the courts in the Requested State, between the same parties and involving the                              same cause of action, and that suit was raised before one of the courts of the                              latter State, at a date prior to the raising of that dispute in the court of the State                              which passed the decree, and provided that the court before which the suit was                              raised, is competent to here and decide upon it.

 Article XXI

              Procedures relating to recognition or execution of a decree shall be subject to the laws of the Requested State.

 Article XXII

 1.          The competent judicial authority in the State requested to recognise or execute a decree shall, without reviewing the merits of the case, confine itself to ascertaining the compliance of the decree with the conditions provided for in this Agreement.

 2.          The competent judicial authority in the Requested State shall, when necessary, in executing the decree, take the necessary action to notify the decree in the same manner as it would have done had it been passed in its own territory.

 3.          The order for execution may be made for the whole or part of the decree, if the execution of such part of the decree is serverable.

 Article XXIII

              The Central Authority of the Contracting Party requesting recognition or execution of a decree in the other Contracting Party, shall submit the following:

              a.             an official copy of the decree.

              b.             a certificate showing that the decree is final and executable, unless that is                               provided for in the decree itself.

              c.             in case of a decree in absentia, an authenticated copy of the summons  or any                               other document showing that the defendant was duly summoned.

              d.            if the request is only for execution of a decree, an official copy in properly                               executable form.

 Article XXIV

 1.          The settlement of a claim which is made and filed before a judicial authority of either Contracting Party competent to consider the claim according to its national law shall be recognised and enforced in the territory of the other Contracting Party, after ascertaining that it is executable in the State in which it was concluded, and that it does not contain any provisions contravening the constitutional rules or public policy of the Requested State.

             2.          The party requesting recognition or execution of a settlement must submit an                            official copy and a certificate from the judicial authority stating the extent, if any,                            to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted.

 ARBITRAL AWARDS

 Article XXV

 1.             Without prejudice to the provisions of Article XXIV and XXVI of this agreement, arbitral awards given in the territory of either Party shall be recognised and enforced in the other Party provided that:

 a.             the award of arbitrators is based on a written agreement of the parties to the dispute to submit to arbitrators for determination of any specific or future dispute arising out of legal relations.

 b.             the award is made on matters arbitrable  according to the law of  the State requested to recognise its enforcement unless it is contrary to the public policy of the Requested State.

 2.          The party requesting the recognition and enforcement of an award, shall produce a copy of the award accompanied by a certificate of the competent judicial authority in the Requesting State to the effect that the award is executable.

 3.          A certified copy of the Agreement between the disputant Parties empowering the arbitrators to decide the dispute shall also be produced.

 RATIFICATION AND TERMINATION

 Article XXVI

              This Agreement is subject to ratification and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged as soon as possible. It shall come into force on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification.

              Either of the Contracting Parties may terminate this Agreement by giving six months notice thereof through diplomatic channels. Upon the expiry of such notice, the Agreement shall cease to have any force or effect.

              In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective governments, have signed this Agreement.

              Done at New Delhi on the 25^th October, 1999 in two originals each in Hindi, Arabic and English languages, each text being equally authentic.  However, in case of difference, the English text shall prevail.

 FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF                            FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA                                    THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Download the Agreement INDIA-UAE 1999 (PDF 105KB)
http://www.judgmentforsale.com/publish/india-uae-agreement-ministry-law-justice-1999.pdf

Principal Sources:

http://lawmin.nic.in/treaty/uae.htm

http://www.judgmentforsale.com/articles/