LC 0501 Module 05 Judicial Measures of Lord Cornwallis
Sunday, 3 April 2022
LC 0501 Module 02 Mayer courts and courts of requests - 1687
Mayer courts and courts of requests
Established under Charger 1687
Charter of 1726 and Mayer Court - in Legal History
Mayors court.
This was established in Madras initially.
Brief History
- Charter of 1600
- British Settlements of Surat (1613 - 1687)
- British Settlements at Madras (1639 - 1726)
- British Settlement at Bombay ( 1668 - 1728)
- British Settlement at Calcutta (1690 - 1727)
Important Charter of Legal History
- Charter 1687 : Brought by East India Company and established corporations , Mayer courts were re-modeled.
- Only 2 courts : Admiralty court and Mayer Court
- Mayer and Admiralty Courts were established.
- Most of India was ruled by Mughals in 1726
- British was having territory was under Bengal , Orissa, Madras and Bombay
- East India was developing fast under the Trading, Commercial and Political
- King George I : Was Ruling King : 24 Sep 1726 Charter was issued to Company
- Mayor : Is the Head of Corporation.
- Earlier Mayer was Supported by Alderman 12
- Remodeled to 09 Aldermen 07 Englishmen 02 other nationality
Necessity of Mayer Court :
- Judicial administration and working of the court in the presidency town was unsatisfied
- British trade was increasing in turn British Population was growing resulting crime was increasing, more cases were coming to court
- The judges were supposed to apply English law but, then being mostly laymen, did not have adequate knowledge according to their own common sense of Justice.
- Encouraged by Successful working of corporation at Madras , the company wanted to establish similar corporations in Bombay and Calcutta
- Company was desiring that court control should be in well competent authority to work out to court with settling down of uniform judicial administrations , resulting uniform rules and systems in corporations in presidency town.
- Many Englishmen who settled in India and leaving behind considerable movable and immovable property. This created problems before company relating to distribution and disposal of asset, to address these issues company was in requirement of court where testamentary (Related to will) cases could be settled
Provision
- Establishment of Corporation at Bombay and Calcutta like Madras
- (Similar like present in Madras)
- Mayer's Court in Presidency Town
- Court was impowered to handle Civil court
- 01 Mayer and 02 Alerman was quoram
- Court has sitting less than thrice in week
- Appeals were going to Governing council
- More than 100 Pagodas ( Gold Coin equal to 3 Rs then) was to be settled in King in council
- Crime and Punishments
- Mayer court Jurisdiction was Civil and Testamentary cases
- Mayer court had no Jurisdiction in Criminal cases
- For Criminal cases : Justice of Peace was formed
- Governor and 5 Senior member were appointed having authority to
- Arrest the person accused of crime
- Punish in Petty cases
- Juri trial in Criminal Cases
- Juri has been of important role in Criminal administration in England
- Charter provide aid in deciding criminal cases with the help of
- Grand Jury (For Big Criminal Cases) 23 Persons
- Petty Juri (Small offences) - Number not defined can fluctuate
- Legislative Power
- Charter empowered Governor in Council to make Law and Rules for regulation of corporation
- Had power to give punishment according to these law
Composition of Mayer Court
- 01 Mayer
- 09 Aldermen -> 07 Englishmen and 02 of any nationality
- First Mayer and First Alderman was selected by Charter only
- Aldermen were to hold office for life or till their residency in the town
- Aldermen could be removed by Governor in Council as and when required
Difference between Charter 1686 and Charter of 1726
|
Court under
Charter 1686 |
Court under
Charter 1726 |
|
Company Court |
Crown Court |
|
Both Civil
and Criminal Cases were handled No
Testamentary Cases to handled |
Only Civil
and Testamentary Cases |
|
Mayer’s Court
appeals to lay in Admiralty Court |
Appeal used
to lay in Governor and Council |
|
Corporations’
composition of 12 Aldermen 3 Englishmen
9 of any nationality |
Corporations’
composition of 9 Aldermen 7 Englishmen
and 02 from any nationality |
LC 0501 Module 01 Early Administration of Justice in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta
LC 0501 Module 01 Early Administration of Justice in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta
Saturday, 2 April 2022
Patna Case 1777 - 1779
Main Actors
- Shahabaz Beg Khan
- Nadira Begam
- Bahadur Beg
- Provincial Council of Patna
- Supreme Court
Shahbaz Beg Khan Native from Kabul (Afghanistan) came to India and served in Military
Earned lot of Money and settled in Patna
Married to Nadira Begam
Expressed his wish to adopt his nephew Bahadur Beg as son
Before fulling the wish, Shahbaz Khan died before Bahadur's arrival
Conflict arise between Nadira Begam and Bahadur Beg, on Property to whom it belonged and both of them claimed entire property
Bahadur Beg filed petition in provincial council in the capacity
- Being adopted Son of deceased and should get all the property
Nadira Begam also claimed the property on 03 documents
- Dower Deed (Meharnama)
- Gift Deed (Hibanama)
- Acknowledgement (Ikararnama)
Provincial Council of Patna : Directed Mufti and Kazi to report regarding this case
On the basis of Kazi and Mufti (Law Officers) arrived to conclude that the documents submitted by Nadira Begam seems fake and forged, and said that property should be divided into 4 parts 03 should be given to Bahadur Beg and 01 Part should go to Nadira Begam. Provencial councial accepted.
Nadira Begam : Appealed in Sadar Diwani Adalat but failed to justice as Adalat was overburdened.
Further Nadira Begam brought an action against the Bahadur Beg, Kazi and Mufti for assault and Battery and false imprisonment and other injuries and claimed damages.
Supreme Court issued a Writ (Warrant of Arrest) against the defendant (Kazi, Mufti, Bahadur Beg. Consequently defendant were arrested from Patna and brought to Calcutta.
Case was tried for 10 days and judgement was delivered in favour of Nadira Begam and awarded damages of 3 Lakhs against defendants for personal injuries. Defendants were not able to pay the damages and finally they were ordered to imprisoned.
They were sent to Calcutta and remained behind bars until the enactment of settlement act 1781 and were freed upon Settlement of act was passed
Conclusion
Patna Case is one of the eminent cases in the subject of legal history of India.
It has provided us with the knowledge that during the performance of any duty or authority given to any legal official should be exercised or conducted within the ambit of their specified field.
This case has also dealt with such situation in which the officials were authorized by the court of law to investigate into the matter of Nadirah Begum and Bahadur Beg to find out the documents and other related information to the case, but during this procedure the officials i.e Kazi and Mufti conducted bad behavior towards Nadirah Begum while entering her house and performance of assault, battery and false imprisonment.
Accordingly by seeing all this Supreme Court gave the judgement in favor of Nadirah Begum and these officials were charged with the Punishment of imprisonment along with the fine of Rs. 3 Lakhs to Nadirah Begum.
Over all this mishaps, Supreme Court gave the right decision/ verdict that had maintained the trust of citizens in judiciary.
The Cossijurah case 1779 – 80
Main Actors
- Raja Sundarnarayan - Zamindar
- Kashinath Babu – Principle Merchant of Calcutta
- Supreme Court
- Supreme Council
Raja Sundarnaayan was Zamindar of Cossijurah in the district Midnapur (Orissa), who was paying Fix Land Revenue Annually to East India Company Government
Kashinath Babu was Principle merchant of Calcutta and he was the surety of Raja Sundarnarayan
Raja was indebted to Kashinath Babu upon two Bonds
Having failed to recover the money from Raja, Kashinath went to revenue board of Calcutta
Kashinath babu filed debt suit in Supreme court Calcutta
Supreme court issued Writ (Orders) of Capias (Warrant of arrest) against Raja Sundarnarayan
The other Zamindar started revolt against the Supreme Court actions
Collector of Midnapur reported to Governor General Council complaining the revenue collection was adversely affected due to supreme court action against Zamindar
Hastings and his council consulted the issue with Attorney General and on the advise, Supreme Council instructed Zamindar not to obey the order of Supreme Court
Having the first Writ failed and been returned unexecuted, the Supreme Court issued another writ against Raja Sundarnarayan
Another writ consists of sixty men along with Sheriff of the court went to execute
The Zamindar alleged that the Sheriff’s men entered his house, injured his servants, and broke open the door
Supreme council directed the officer commanding the troops to arrest Sheriff’s men
The collector of Midnapur arrested sheriff and men, kept them for 03 days confinement and sent back to Calcutta as prisoners
Sheriff and his men were finally released by Supreme council, but the Governor General directed to resist any further writ of Supreme Court
Kashinath Babu aggrieved and brought action against Governor General and Council Stating involvement in assault of Sheriff and his men and seizing of his property
This led to conflict between Supreme Court and Supreme Council
Conclusion
Finally, at this stage Kashinath Babu withdrew his case against Raja Sundarnararyan and Governor General and Council in view of the serious consequences arising out of the case
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)