TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Judgment Confirms Letter Not Confidential Under Evidence Act; Petition Dismissed, Costs Awarded to Respondents.</h1> <h3>Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. Versus Vijay Metal Works</h3> The judgment upheld the Small Causes Court's decision, ruling that the letter dated 5-2-1975 was not protected under Sections 126 or 129 of the Evidence ... - Issues Involved:1. Eviction proceedings under Section 105-B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988.2. Confidentiality and privilege of a communication under Sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act.3. Status of a salaried legal adviser in relation to Sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act.4. Nature of the document in question and its protection under the Evidence Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eviction Proceedings under Section 105-B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988:The petitioners initiated eviction proceedings against the respondents for the reconstruction of the Mahalaxmi Bridge in Bombay. The premises in question were located at the junction of Clark Road and Hama Road. Notices were served, and eviction proceedings were taken before the Small Causes Court at Bombay.2. Confidentiality and Privilege of a Communication under Sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act:The respondents requested the production of an original letter dated 5-2-1975 from the Corporation, which was initially inspected and filed before the Enquiry Officer. The Corporation objected, claiming privilege under Section 129 of the Evidence Act, asserting that the letter was a confidential communication by their Legal Adviser. The Small Causes Court ruled that the communication was not privileged under Sections 126 or 129, leading to the current petition challenging this order.3. Status of a Salaried Legal Adviser in Relation to Sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act:The petitioners argued that the salaried Legal Adviser of the Corporation should be protected under Section 129, similar to a barrister, vakil, or attorney under Section 126. The respondents contended that a salaried Law Officer is not covered by these sections as they are not in independent practice but are employees of the Corporation. The judgment emphasized that the spirit of the law should be considered, noting the evolving practice of employing legal advisers full-time. It was concluded that salaried legal advisers should receive the same protection as other legal professionals under Sections 126 and 129.4. Nature of the Document in Question and Its Protection under the Evidence Act:The letter dated 5-2-1975 was examined to determine if it was a confidential communication protected under the Evidence Act. It was found that the letter was a draft reply prepared by the Law Officer for the Municipal Commissioner, addressing queries from the State Government. The letter disclosed facts about the eviction proceedings under false pretenses and suggested creating a public purpose to justify the evictions. The judgment concluded that the letter was not a confidential communication between a client and legal adviser and contained shocking facts that negated any privilege. Additionally, the letter had already been produced in another enquiry and inspected with the Corporation's consent, further negating the claim of privilege.Conclusion:The judgment confirmed the order of the Small Causes Court, ruling that the letter dated 5-2-1975 was not protected under Sections 126 or 129 of the Evidence Act. The petition was dismissed, and the Corporation was ordered to pay costs to the respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
