https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311200 A defamatory reply notice issued through counsel was held not to retain Section 126 privilege once the communication had already been disclosed to the opposite party, because confidentiality was lost on transmission. The Court also stated that express consent under Section 126 need not be in writing and may be inferred from circumstances, including the client's act of having the notice issued through an advocate. On that basis, the reply notice could be relied on in the defamation prosecution, and the complaint was not liable to be quashed on the claimed privilege ground. en-us Mon, 06 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311200 A defamatory reply notice issued through counsel was held not to retain Section 126 privilege once the communication had already been disclosed to the opposite party, because confidentiality was lost on transmission. The Court also stated that express consent under Section 126 need not be in writing and may be inferred from circumstances, including the client's act of having the notice issued through an advocate. On that basis, the reply notice could be relied on in the defamation prosecution, and the complaint was not liable to be quashed on the claimed privilege ground. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311200