The Patna Case

In the Patna case, the Supreme Court supporteda woman against the interests of
her deceased husband's nephew. In Nauderah Begum v. Bahadur Beg. DuzI Saudi,
Muyfi Barracktoola, and Mufti Ghulam Mackdown (1777-1779) Nauderah Begum
was attempting to recover her inheritance. Her husband's nephew, Bahadur Beg,
had accused her of illegally keeping her husband's possessions with a forged will.
The Patna Council supported Beg. Their Diwani Adalat ruled on his case without
any due process and ordered the Adalat's officers the qazi and the multis-t0
seize Naderah's property. Forced off her land, Naderah fled to a dargah (Islamic
shrine) for sanctuary with the deeds that supported her position. Beg then entered a
new charge in the provincial court against Naderah, for having disgraced his family
by tleeing. The Patna Council sent sepoys to the dargah to compel her return.

Like Chand andothers, Naderah could have appealed her case to the Supreme
Council's Sadr Diwani Adalat ifit had existed anywhere other than on paper.
Instead, she petitioned Hastings for help directly. After receiving no reply, she
turned to the Supreme Court and filed a suit claiming Rs. 600,000 in damages.
Beg's attorney argued that he was not under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction
because he was a revenue "farmer" (contractor), not a revenue "collector"
(salaried) and thus not "directly or indirectly" in the Company's service. The Court
unanimously disagreed. Impey stated the Court's opinion that simply changing the
name of the officer from a "collector" to a "farmer" still meant Beg was involved
in tax collection and was "directly or indirectly" in the Company's service and
under the Court's jurisdiction. The Court also agreed the qazi and muftis were
subject to their jurisdiction since they were the Patna Council's employees.

The Supreme Court found that the Patna Diwani Adalat had decided the case and
seized the property on no evidence other than Beg's testimony. They suspected
Beg had bribed the Council, the qazi and the muftis. Impey further suspected the
Patna Council had fabricated their entire proceedings, recording the events only
after the Supreme Court took up Naderah's case. The Court ruled that the Patna
Diwani Adalat had violated its duties by improperly deciding the case without due
process and awarded Naderah Rs. 300,000 in damages and Rs. 9,208 in costs in
February 1779. This outcome was not acceptable to many Company servants nor to
the Supreme Council who viewed the Court as an unwelcome intruder on their tax
collection system and their provincial councils.

The Supreme Council moved to protect its provincial council and Beg. They
attempted to sue Naderah for forging her husband's will, a charge that carried the
 death penalty. Hyde refused to issue the necessary Impey, still n
warrants and
uine.
was genuine,
alignment with Hyde. spoke the Court's iudoment that Naderah's will
squashing the Supreme Council's suit. The Court had won a major ore
confronung both the Patna and Supreme C'ouncils, thus proving that tax colnecOs
the
were under fulfilled their mission to protect
their jurisdiction. They had also
most marginalized in society against the Company's predations. They had giv
power to a woman against a man, however, and that was unacceptable. Against hisS
The appeal,
legal counsel's objections, Hastings sent the trial to London for appeal.in London as
along with supporting facsimile documents, was immediately printed
were the Dacca, Patna and later Kashijora cases, ensuring that the Supreme
would De
Council s side of the story would be heard before any other. The appeal
would later have
added to a growing body of print published against the Court that
significant effects on the Court's authority.

The Kashijora Case

The Regulating Act had put the Supreme Court and Supreme Council
oi
case was the
collision course where there could be only one victor. The Kashijora
culmination of the Court and Council's disagreements. It was the
first case where
the Supreme Court's claim of jurisdiction over zamindars was directly tested.
Previous had dealt with Councils, Adalats, revenue
cases collectors, revenue
the title
farmers, and their agents, but never directly with anyone who held
zamindar.

Kashinath Babu v. Raja Sunder Narayan and theEast India Company (1779-1780)
did not
began when Narayan, the zamindar of Kashijora in Midnapore district,
Kashinath had paid the Company on the
repay his banker, Kashinath, for taxes
zamindar's behalf. Kashinath sued for redress. Hyde ordered Narayan be brought
to trial but the Company's attorney, North Naylor, warned Narayan and advised
him to go into hiding. When the sheriff returned empty handed, Hyde issued a writ
to seize Narayan's property to compel him to come to court. Tipped off again by
Naylor, the Supreme Council ordered the Company army to intercept the sheriff's
men. After a brief standoff, the army seized the sheriff and his men. Force, not law,
had decided the issue of jurisdiction in Bengal.

Impey joined Hyde (Chambers was absent) in the Court's next actions. They issued
writs requiring the Army commanders and Naylor to defend their actions or be
declared in contempt and issued another writ asking the Supreme Council to
defend their actions. The army closed its barracks, preventing the sheriff from
delivering his writs and the Councilors refused to defend their actions. Only Naylor
 vas accesible so
was access

declar theImpey
Court declared entire
threw mhim inin
jail for
for contempt
entire
Supreme contempt where
wnere he later died. The
n.
However,
However, they could do Council in contempt
contempt for ignoring their writs.
i
nothing more. Force had become
become law. law
Trial of Raja Nand Kumar
Raja Nandkumar was a big
He was kind ol
Zamindar and intlucntial ncrson in
Bengal. ILong story shor
friend with Warren Ilastinps initially.
deteriorated. Nand But later on relations between
Kumar accused
Warreu ine
council regarding this, also it was llastings of taking Bribe. Ile wrote lettcr
to
Lady Munni Begam. provided that Warren Hastings took Bribe Irom anoner

There was internalrivalry among couneil. Couneil member

oust Warren seivcd this opportuy
Hasting. They carried out certain procceding. This is not dircctly related to
trial. but circumstantially related.
What happened afier this.

Native Mohan Prasad brought the charges of Forgery against Raja Nand Kumar,
Trial was carried out by
Supreme Court.
Raja Nand Kumar was convicted under 1728 Forgery Act.
Raja Nand Kumar was not given a chance to appeal in Privy Council or King-in-
Council.
Mercy petition of Raja Nand Kumar was not forwarded by Supreme Court to
Crown.
Raja Nand Kumar was executed in 1775.

Many historians argues that Cold blooded Judicial Murder was carried out by Supreme
Court. Warren Hastings for avenge along with Supreme court carried out this, some
believes.
There are also other historians who believed that Raja Nand Kumar was given a fair trial.
We will try to put forth arguments from Both sides and leave it to you to judge.

Arguments that Raja Nand Kumar was given fair trial

It is accused that Chief Justice Impey and Warren Hastings were school friends
and chief justice shown partiality to gratify his friend. But Warren Hastings and
with
Impey were not really close friends. They had issues on various aspect,
respect to jurisdiction as it will be clear from Cossijurah
case.

Forgery Act of 1728 provided for capital punishment in case of conviction. So

court was right in sentencing capital punishment.
 offense. So
Radha Charan Mettre was also prosecuted for similar
ltt "o5. to India doesn't hold.
that Forgery Act 1728 not applicable
argument But apparently this
believed that Trial was retaliation by Warren Hastings.
Some Warren
brought by Native and not really by
also looks untrue as charges were

Hastings. Court, it is argued that Judges believed in

As far as the jurisdiction of Supreme
over Calcutta.
good faith that they have jurisdiction that trial was fair and impartial.Dr
also think
Many contemporary judges was not outcome
of any political
B.N.Pandey expressed the view that trial
conspiracy.