<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (7) TMI 1349 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280355</link>
    <description>Section 126 protects confidential communications between a client and counsel made in the course of professional employment, including the contents or condition of documents learned in that capacity and legal advice given, subject only to the recognised exceptions for communications in furtherance of an illegal purpose or facts showing crime or fraud. The provision is aimed at preserving confidentiality for both client and advocate and preventing unnecessary involvement of counsel in the client&#039;s dispute. Where examination is sought on alleged professional communications, the client&#039;s consent is required. On that basis, the trial court&#039;s order permitting the advocate&#039;s examination was erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2019 17:39:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1349 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280355</link>
      <description>Section 126 protects confidential communications between a client and counsel made in the course of professional employment, including the contents or condition of documents learned in that capacity and legal advice given, subject only to the recognised exceptions for communications in furtherance of an illegal purpose or facts showing crime or fraud. The provision is aimed at preserving confidentiality for both client and advocate and preventing unnecessary involvement of counsel in the client&#039;s dispute. Where examination is sought on alleged professional communications, the client&#039;s consent is required. On that basis, the trial court&#039;s order permitting the advocate&#039;s examination was erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>