SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Abhay Ahuja, J.
Anil Vishnu Anturkar – Appellant
Versus
Chandrakumar Popatlal Baldota & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3359 of 2015
Decided On : 21-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Phatak and Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, for the Appellant; Mr. S. N. Chandrachood, for the Respondent.

Privileged communication between a lawyer and client is protected under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, and such communication cannot be produced or admitted as evidence without the client's express consent.

Headnote:

Privileged Communication - Witness Summons - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 126 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, which protects privileged communication between a lawyer and client. The court held that the communication dated 11th January, 2004 between the petitioner and his deceased client was a privileged communication and could not be produced or admitted as evidence in the Special Civil Suit No. 1209 of 2004. The impugned witness summons was quashed and set aside based on the privileged nature of the communication.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a designated Senior Advocate, challenged the witness summons directing him to produce a communication dated 11th January, 2004 written to his deceased client in a civil suit. The petitioner claimed privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating that the communication was protected as a privileged communication.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the communication dated 11th January, 2004 was a privileged communication and could not be produced or admitted as evidence in the civil suit, based on the provisions of Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could claim privilege with respect to the communication dated 11th January, 2004 and whether such communication could be produced and considered in the civil suit in the face of the provisions of Section 126 of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the communication dated 11th January, 2004 was a privileged communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore, could not be produced or admitted as evidence in the civil suit.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned witness summons, ruling in favor of the petitioner based on the privileged nature of the communication.

JUDGMENT

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is a designated Senior Advocate of this Court is impugning the issuance of witness summons dated 23rd March, 2015 directing Petitioner to remain present on 27th March, 2015 at 11.00 a.m. before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune for giving evidence in Special Civil Suit No. 1209 of 2004, which date was at the time of filing of this petition fixed for 4th April, 2015. Petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the said witness summons by this petition. By an ad-interim order dated 31st March, 2015, continued from time to time, the impugned witness summons has been stayed in terms of prayer clause [B] to the petition.

2. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned witness summons at Exhibit-D, page 22 to the petition requires Petitioner to remain present before the Civil judge, Senior Division, Pune and produce an office copy of the letter dated 11th January, 2004 written by the petitioner to his client Shri Dara Bharucha, residing at 4. Dr. Coyaji Road, Pune-411 001, a photocopy whereof has been produced by the respondent no.1 in Special Civil Suit No. 1209 of 2004. The said communication has been annexed at Exhibit B to the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel states, on instructions, that Mr. Dara Bharucha already dead.

3. Learned senior counsel would submit that the said communication is a professional communication, an opinion which is protected as a privileged communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the 'Evidence Act'). He would submit that the application for issuance of witness summons has been made by the respondent no.1 to this petition. Learned Senior Counsel submits that till date no copy of the plaint in the said civil suit has been received by Petitioner. He would submit that although it appears that respondent no.1 is a plaintiff to the said Special Civil Suit No. 1209 of 2004, however, since Petitioner is not having copy of the plaint of the said Special Suit, Petitioner is not in a position to say for what purpose the said special suit has been filed against Shri Bharucha. That petitioner is also not aware of the other defendants in the said suit. That the names and addresses have been taken from the website.

4. Mr. Kumbhakoni, would further submit that a photocopy of the letter written by Petitioner to his client Shri Dara Bharucha on 11th January, 2004 has been produced by respondent no.1, which has been annexed as Exhibit B to the petition. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said communication being an opinion/advice from a senior lawyer to his client is a 'privileged communication' as per the provisions of Section 126 of the Evidence Act. He draws the attention of this Court to Section 126 of the Act to submit that no barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purposes of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, to disclose any advice given by him to his client, unless he has his client's express consent to disclose. Mr. Kumbhakoni, would submit that this is a two way prohibition, one is of the communication made by the client to the professional and other is the communication made by the professional to his client. Both are prohibited, unless the client has expressly consented to disclosure of such communication. Learned senior counsel would submit that this obligation continues even after the employment has ceased. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Petitioner has neither at any point in time received any such consent from his client Shri Dara Bharucha to disclose the communication dated 11th January, 2004 being Exhibit B to the pe

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top