9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. When the respondents called upon the Advocate of the Corporation to produce the original letter dated 5-2-1975, an objection was raised mainly as regards privilege, According to the Corporation, this was a confidential communication by the Legal Adviser of the Corporation Sec. 129 of the Evidence Act. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court by his order dated 8th Oct., 1980 held that his communication was not privileged either under S. 129 or under S. 126 of the Evidence Act, He, therefore, ordered the production of that letter and adjourned the case till 28th Oct., This order had been challenged in the present petition. 2. Shri. R.T. Walawalkar the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the letter dated 5-2-1975 was a confidential communication by the Legal Adviser of his client, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. Under Section 129 of the Evidence Act no one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case, he may be compelled to disclose any such communication as may appear to the Court necessary to be kn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s employment, It is immaterial under this section whether attention of such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client. These obligations not to disclose certain communications as stated above continue even after the employment as such has come to an Sec. 129 gives protection to persons that shall not be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case, he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given but not others. Therefore, any confidential communication between a client and a legal professional adviser is protected under S. 126 and they shall not be compelled to disclose any such person offers himself as a witness and it appears to the Court that such disclosure is necessary in order to explain any evidence which such person has given and nothing beyond than that, However, the crucial question which arises in this petition is what it the status of a salaried Legal Adviser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 19th century. At that time nearly all legal advisers were in independent practice on their own account. Nowadays it is very different. Many barristers and solicitors are different. Many barristers and solicitors are employed as legal advisers, whole time, by a single employer, Sometimes the employer is a great commercial concern. At other times it is a government department or a local authority. It may even be the government itself, lime the Treasury Solicitor and his staff. In every case these legal advisers do legal work for their employer and for no each piece or work, but by a fixed annual salary. They are, no doubt, servants or agents of the employer. For that reason forbes J. Thought that they were in a different position from other legal advisers who are in private practice. I do not think this is correct. They are regarded by the law as in every respect in the same position as those who practice on their own account. The only difference is that they act for one client only, and not for several clients. They must uphold the same standards of honour and of etiquette. They are subject to the same duties to their clients have the same privileges. I have myself in my early da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Judge was in error in ordering production of that document. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the letter in question is confidential one which is protected by these sections. A reading of this letter makes it clear that the Law Officer of the Corporation had prepared a note for the Corporation had prepared a note for the purpose of sending a reply by the Municipal Commissioner to a letter of the State Government. It refers to the endorsement dated 25-1-1975. The endorsement number if MGC/8959 dated 21-5-1975. This is an endorsement made to the Law Officer that a draft reply for the Municipal Commissioner's approval has to the letter from the Government Dated 24-1-1875, wherein the Government had made certain queries. It, therefore, appears that the Law Officer was requested 16 prepare a draft reply to the letter dated 24th January 1975 for the purpose of Municipal commissioner who was supposed to reply that letter. It appears that no legal advice was sought from the Law Officer on any question. On the contrary this draft letter discloses the facts as this letter is that eviction proceedings under S. 105/B of the Corporation Act were storied against the occu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
