A salaried employee of a corporation who advises the corporation on legal matters is a "legal adviser" within the meaning of sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and is entitled to the same protection of law as other legal advisers.

Headnote:
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTIONS 126, 129 - PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS - LEGAL ADVISER - SALARIED EMPLOYEE OF CORPORATION - WHETHER PROTECTED.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, sought to evict the respondents from certain premises under section 105B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. During cross-examination of a witness for the respondents, the Corporation was asked to produce an original letter dated 5-2-1975, which had been inspected by the respondents earlier. The Corporation objected, claiming privilege under sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the letter was not privileged under sections 126 or 129 of the Evidence Act. It found that the letter was not a confidential communication between a client and a legal adviser, but rather a draft reply to a letter from the State Government prepared by the Law Officer of the Corporation. The court also found that the letter disclosed shocking facts about the Corporation's conduct, which destroyed any privilege that might otherwise have attached to it.
Issues: 1. Whether a salaried employee of a corporation who advises the corporation on legal matters is a "legal adviser" within the meaning of sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 2. Whether the letter in question was a confidential communication between a client and a legal adviser.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a salaried employee of a corporation who advises the corporation on legal matters is a "legal adviser" within the meaning of sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The court reasoned that these sections protect confidential communications between a client and a legal adviser, and that the nature of the duties of a salaried legal adviser is the same as that of a barrister, pleader, vakil, or attorney, except that they do not appear in court. 2. The court held that the letter in question was not a confidential communication between a client and a legal adviser. The court found that the letter was a draft reply to a letter from the State Government, and that it did not seek any legal advice from the Law Officer. The court also found that the letter disclosed shocking facts about the Corporation's conduct, which destroyed any privilege that might otherwise have attached to it.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and ordered the Corporation to pay the respondents' costs.

JUDGMENT-The petitioners had initiated actions against the respondents for eviction on the ground that Mahalaxmi Bridge at Bombay was to be reconstructed and those premises which are in the shape of Arches at the junction of Clark Road and Hains Road were to be vacated. The notices were therefore served by the petitioners upon the respondents and eviction proceedings under section 105B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 were taken, before the Small Causes Court at Bombay. During the cross-examination of the witness for the respondents, the Corporation was called upon to produce original letter dated 5-2-1975. Earlier inspection of this letter was granted by the Corporation and I am told that the letter has been filed before the Enquiry Officer of the Corporation. 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 and the same was privileged under section 129 of the Evidence Act. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court by his order dated 8th October 1980 held that this communication was not privileged either under section 129 or under section 126 of the Evidence Act. He, therefore, ordered the production of that letter and adjourned the case till 28th October 1980. This order has 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 Advisor of the Corporation to 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 known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but no others. Shri Walawalkar therefore argued that the learned Judge was in error in compelling the production of this document by the Corporation.

3. Shri Korde, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the Law Officer of the Corporation who has written the said letter dated 5-2-1975, is not covered by either section 126 or 129 of the Evidence Act. A salaried Law Officer of the Corporation is not the Legal Adviser, or even Barrister, Vakil or Attorney. He is a paid employee of the Corporation and there is no relationship between the Corporation and him as that of client and Legal Adviser. He further submitted that what sections 126 and 129 contemplate is that a person who is pracricing law in Courts of law has the privilege under these sections and it is not an employee who acts as a Law Officer who is protected by these sections. He further submitted that sections 126 and 129 are supplementary to each other and they must be construed in the same manner and a Legal Adviser which is mentioned in section 129 must be of the category of Barrister, Vakil or attorney as mentioned in section 126, and not anybody employed by a Corporation or a Company.

4. Section 126 protects the professional communications made by a client to his barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil. It prohibits these persons from disclosing any communication made to them in the Course and for the purpose of their employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil by or on behalf of the client, unless there is an express permission of the client to disclose the same. These persons are also prohibited from stating contents or conditions of any document with which they are acquainted ill the course of and for the purpose of their professional employment. They also cannot be compelled to disclose what advice was tendered by them to the client in the Course of and for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1981 Supreme(Bom) 84

A salaried employee of a corporation who advises the corporation on legal matters is a "legal adviser" within the meaning of sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and is entitled to the same protection of law as other legal advisers.

Login now and unlock premium legal research