- SECTION 126 and 129 – Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Vijay Metal Works
- Bench: Justice Palshikar
Facts:
The petitioners’ imitated action in this case for the eviction of the respondents on the ground of reconstruction and hence have to be evacuated. The notices were served by the Petitioners and the same was taken up to the Small Causes Court. During the cross-examination of the witness for the respondents, the Corporation was called upon to produce the original letter which upon inspection was granted by the Corporation and had been filed before the Enquiry in the Officer of the Corporation. When the respondents called upon the Advocate of the Corporation to produce the original letter, an objection was raised mainly as regards privilege. According to the Corporation, this was a confidential communication by the Legal Adviser of the Corporation protected under Sec. 129 of the Evidence Act. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court by his order held that this communication was not privileged either under S. 129 or under S. 126 of the Evidence Act. The production of that letter was ordered and the case was adjourned for a later date. This same order had been challenged in the present petition.
Issues:
Whether the communication made by a salaried legal adviser employed by a corporation to another employee privileged and protected under Sections 126 and 129?
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The appellant contended that the letter was confidential information between a counsel and the client who is the Municipal Corporation in this case and is therefore not compelled for examination as under Section 129 of the Evidence Act. It was stated that unless the party makes himself a witness to the case, he is not compelled to reveal such privileged information to the Court. In light of this it was plead that there was an error on the lower court in compelling the production of the said privileged document to the Court to further proceedings.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The contention of the respondent was that the Law officer communication is not privileged nor is it covered under Section 126 or 129 of the Act. The legal officer is a salaried employee of the Corporation has no relationship of client and legal adviser between the two. Further, Sections 126 and 129 contemplate that a person practicing law in Courts has the privilege under these sections and it is not an employee who acts as a Law Officer who is protected by these sections. Finally, 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 S. 129 must be of the category of a Barrister, Vakil or Attorney as mentioned in S. 126, and cannot apply to anybody employed by a Corporation or a Company.
Judgment:
The Court held that the first question that is to be answered is whether the document of communication contains any confidential information. It was concluded that this particular document and the information contained within upon speculation does not include any confidential information, but discloses facts that can destroy the privilege that eth party aims to protect. Since it was found that certain facts were being sought to be suppressed by the Government in this case, the Court ordered that any document which would clear such confusion and clear the conscious of a common man cannot be protected by the law under either Sections. The order of the Small Causes court was upheld and the current petition was dismissed with costs.
