Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎146r] (291/644)

[12998]
231. The Persian Railways Syndicate took legal advice during the course of
the year with regard to the effect on their claim of the Iranian law of prescription.
The period of prescription is ten years from the date on which payment became
due, or on which liability was last acknowledged by the debtor ; and Dr. Naficy
was inclined to hold, from a study of the papers submitted to him, that liability
was last acknowledged in 1926 or 1927. He added, however, that the law of
prescription would not be applied by the courts unless it was invoked by one of
the parties to the case. The syndicate s statement of accounts was forwarded
to the Iranian Government as usual at the end of the year.
232. A reply was received in May to His Majesty’s Minister s note of the
15th December, 1934, pressing for an impartial examination of the Persian
Transport Company’s claim to compensation. The contention of the Iranian
Government was that the arguments contained in that note involved an admission
that the company had violated its concession. His Majesty s Minister was later
instructed to reply that the object of his earlier note had on the contrary b ee ii
to show that the company had not committed a breach of its concession, but had
been constrained by force majeur. He accordingly suggested that the matter
might be reconsidered. His note remained unanswered.
(9) British Subjects in Difficulties.
(a) General.
233. His Majesty’s Legation were constantly called on during the course of
the year to intervene with the Iranian Government on behalf of British subjects
who were the victims of arbitrary and often illegal action by the military
authorities or the police. In general it seemed that the numbei ol such cases
reported by His Majesty’s consular officers varied in proportion to the power of
the military in the district concerned.
234 The task of securing justice for British Indian subjects proved
especially hard; but, while unfortunately it was seldom possible to obtain redress
for wrongs done in individual cases, it is to be hoped that the policy pursued of
raising all the worst cases with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs will gradually
lead to an improvement in the present unsatisfactory state of affairs.
(b) Jehan Khan.
235. His Majesty’s Minister received instructions in February to inform
the Iranian Government that, while he did not desire to pursue the case o
Jehan Khan further (see paragraphs 226-231 of the annual report for 1934), he
nevertheless adhered to the views expressed to them on the question oi principle
that had been raised in regard to the diplomatic immunity of Legation servants.
236. Jehan Khan later secured the return of his confiscated property.
(c) Mesopotamia Iran Corporation (Limited).
237 The corporation, in their capacity as Lloyd s agents, experienced
considerable difficulties after the fire in the Mohammerah Customs-House at the
end of July owing to the refusal of the authorities to furnish them with a full list
of goods destroyed or damaged. The latter demanded that the corporation should
first produce documentary evidence (a) that any given consignment was insured,
and (b) that they were the agents of the underwriters concerned I he corporation
maintained, on the other hand, that they were agents for underwriters all over
the world and that the only way to proceed was to submit a full list ot all goods
lost or destroyed to Lloyds for the information of underwriters.
corporation experienced further difficulties owing to their inability to obtain for
Lloyds any statement from the authorities in regard to the findings of the official
commission appointed to enquire into the origin of the fire.