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

1968 Supreme(Cal) 66

B.N.BANERJEE, K.L.RAY
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL-1 – Appellant
Versus
SANDERSONS AND MORGANS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.L.PAL, D.PAL, N.L.PAL

BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 raises an interesting question about solicitor-client relationship.

( 2 ) THE institution of Solicitors is an English institution, which has been imported to or copied by this country. In dealing with the position of Solicitors in India, Marten, C. J. , observed in Tyabji Dayabhai and Co. v. Jetha Devsi and Co. , AIR 1927 Bom 542:--"in the first place it must be clearly understood that the rights and duties of attorney are in no way part of the indigenous law or practice in India. Their profession originates from, England; it grew up under the English Common Law and it is clear that it was the Common Law which governed their rights and duties in the King's Courts established by the Supreme Court Charter of 1823 to which Courts our present High Court is the successor. "this Court quoted with approval the above observation in Damodar Das v. Morgan and Co. , AIR 1934 Cal 341 and Panckridge, J. , observed:"mutatis mutandis those words appear to me to apply to the Calcutta High Court. I take the learned Chief Justice's words as amounting to a statement that the rights of an attorney in India are

















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top