TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether communications made to a salaried law officer employed by a corporation are protected by legal professional privilege under the Evidence Act; (ii) whether the particular letter sought to be produced was a privileged confidential communication.
Issue (i): Whether communications made to a salaried law officer employed by a corporation are protected by legal professional privilege under the Evidence Act.
Analysis: Sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act protect confidential communications between a client and a legal adviser. The protection is not confined to advocates in independent practice. A full-time legal adviser who advises the employer on legal questions and litigation occupies, for this purpose, the same position as other legal advisers. Communications made in that capacity are entitled to the same privilege, though communications in some other capacity would not be.
Conclusion: The law officer of a corporation is capable of claiming privilege for communications made in the capacity of legal adviser.
Issue (ii): Whether the particular letter sought to be produced was a privileged confidential communication.
Analysis: The document was a draft reply prepared for approval of the Municipal Commissioner and did not disclose a request for legal advice on a confidential basis. Its contents showed the factual basis on which the eviction action had been initiated and indicated prior production of the document in another enquiry with consent and inspection by the respondent. On these facts, the document did not answer to the description of a protected confidential communication.
Conclusion: The letter was not privileged and could be ordered to be produced.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the production order failed, and the order requiring production of the document was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Privilege under Sections 126 and 129 extends to confidential communications made to a salaried legal adviser acting in that capacity, but a document will not be protected unless it is in truth a confidential communication for legal advice.
TaxTMI 
