Dispute between Court Cutcherry and Mayor’s Court, Calcutta

Summary

Focusing on early colonial Calcutta, this article analyses a jurisdictional conflict between two courts: the Mayor’s Court, established under the Charter of 1726, and the Court Cutcherry, which represented the zamindar’s judicial authority. A new charter issued in 1753 limited the Mayor’s Court’s power by excluding suits between Indian natives unless both parties consented. This provision sought to allow Indians to be judged according to their own laws, but some members of the Mayor’s Court resisted the restriction, leading to legal ambiguity. The article explores whether the Mayor’s Court could adjudicate cases involving Indians and Europeans or other residents and highlights that the Court Cutcherry’s authority derived from a Mughal grant made in 1698. Through examination of charters and correspondence, it shows that the Court Cutcherry served as the principal tribunal for Indians, with appeals to the East India Company’s President and Council. The article discusses how tensions arose as British officials tried to extend their jurisdiction, sometimes clashing with the traditional authority exercised by the zamindar’s officers. By illuminating this dispute, the author sheds light on the complexities of colonial legal administration and the competing legal cultures that coexisted in the early British settlement at Calcutta. It underscores the struggles to balance imperial control with respect for indigenous law and precolonial legal practices.