Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Between Litigation and Arbitration
View graph of relations

Between Litigation and Arbitration: Administering Legal Pluralism in Eighteenth-Century Bombay

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Between Litigation and Arbitration: Administering Legal Pluralism in Eighteenth-Century Bombay. / Hodges, Lenny.
In: Itinerario, Vol. 42, No. 3, 31.12.2018, p. 490-515.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Hodges L. Between Litigation and Arbitration: Administering Legal Pluralism in Eighteenth-Century Bombay. Itinerario. 2018 Dec 31;42(3):490-515. doi: 10.1017/S0165115318000633

Author

Bibtex

@article{48bb16342ec34155b004292c79447228,
title = "Between Litigation and Arbitration: Administering Legal Pluralism in Eighteenth-Century Bombay",
abstract = "This article uses the records of the Bombay Mayor{\textquoteright}s Court (1728–1798) to explore the ways in which an ostensibly English court of law attempted to administer law in a way that was acceptable to a cosmopolitan cast of litigants. I show how, due to the Court{\textquoteright}s popularity with Indian litigants, and the difficulties of its hybrid jurisprudence, the Court eventually moved to a model of formalised arbitration. In this arrangement, local Indian elites exercised considerable autonomy, while British judges gained an illicit commission. As such, the evidence from the Mayor{\textquoteright}s Court points to a novel iteration of legal pluralism in which ill-defined legal regimes came to blur and blend with each other in a single forum. I argue that this forces us to reconceptualise solely jurisdictional definitions of legal pluralism, which must be complimented with the study of a court{\textquoteright}s {\textquoteleft}jurispractice{\textquoteright}.",
author = "Lenny Hodges",
year = "2018",
month = dec,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1017/S0165115318000633",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "490--515",
journal = "Itinerario",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Between Litigation and Arbitration

T2 - Administering Legal Pluralism in Eighteenth-Century Bombay

AU - Hodges, Lenny

PY - 2018/12/31

Y1 - 2018/12/31

N2 - This article uses the records of the Bombay Mayor’s Court (1728–1798) to explore the ways in which an ostensibly English court of law attempted to administer law in a way that was acceptable to a cosmopolitan cast of litigants. I show how, due to the Court’s popularity with Indian litigants, and the difficulties of its hybrid jurisprudence, the Court eventually moved to a model of formalised arbitration. In this arrangement, local Indian elites exercised considerable autonomy, while British judges gained an illicit commission. As such, the evidence from the Mayor’s Court points to a novel iteration of legal pluralism in which ill-defined legal regimes came to blur and blend with each other in a single forum. I argue that this forces us to reconceptualise solely jurisdictional definitions of legal pluralism, which must be complimented with the study of a court’s ‘jurispractice’.

AB - This article uses the records of the Bombay Mayor’s Court (1728–1798) to explore the ways in which an ostensibly English court of law attempted to administer law in a way that was acceptable to a cosmopolitan cast of litigants. I show how, due to the Court’s popularity with Indian litigants, and the difficulties of its hybrid jurisprudence, the Court eventually moved to a model of formalised arbitration. In this arrangement, local Indian elites exercised considerable autonomy, while British judges gained an illicit commission. As such, the evidence from the Mayor’s Court points to a novel iteration of legal pluralism in which ill-defined legal regimes came to blur and blend with each other in a single forum. I argue that this forces us to reconceptualise solely jurisdictional definitions of legal pluralism, which must be complimented with the study of a court’s ‘jurispractice’.

U2 - 10.1017/S0165115318000633

DO - 10.1017/S0165115318000633

M3 - Journal article

VL - 42

SP - 490

EP - 515

JO - Itinerario

JF - Itinerario

IS - 3

ER -