The case arose out of the East India Company’s controversial relations with the Nabob at a stage when the courts had not yet learned to identify the East India Company with the British government. The Company had assisted the Nabob, a sovereign ruler, in his wars against neighbouring princes. The Nabob had thereby incurred large debts to them, secured on his public revenues and on part of his territory. The Nabob alleged that they had taken more than he owed them, and sued for an account. The company, although a private person in respect of its trading activities, was treated as a sovereign in relation to its operations as the ruler of a large part of India.
Held: The commissioners discharging the office of Chancellor dismissed the claim: ‘It is a case of mutual treaty between persons acting in that instance as states independent of each other; and the circumstance, that the East India Company are mere subjects with relation to this country, has nothing to do with that. That treaty was entered into with them, not as subjects, but as a neighbouring independent state, and is the same, as if it was a treaty between two sovereigns; and consequently is not a subject of private, municipal, jurisdiction.’
Political treaties between a foreign state and subjects of the crown of Great Britain, acting as an independent state under powers granted by charter and act of parliament, are not a subject of municipal jurisdiction ; therefore a bill founded on such treaties by the Nabob of Arcot against the East India Company was dismissed.
Citations:
[1793] EngR 1368, (1792-1793) 2 Ves Jun 56, (1793) 30 ER 521
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Nabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company 1789
. .
See Also – Nabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company 2-Jan-1789
A political treaty, between sovereigns, or parties exercising sovereign authority cannot be the subject of a municipal jurisdiction. . .
See Also – Nabob of The Carnatic v East India Company 23-Jul-1791
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Approved – Carr v Fracis Times and Co HL 1902
The House considered a claim following seizure of ammunition by British officers in Muscat under the authority of a proclamation of the absolute ruler, the Sultan of Muscat, whose word was law.
Held: The appeal succeeded. To found an action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.357955