Generally, admissions of fact made by a counsel is binding upon their principals as long as they are unequivocal; where, however, doubt exists as to a purported admission, the Court should be wary to accept such admissions until and unless the counsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to make such admissions. Furthermore, a client is not bound by a statement or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make. Lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We hasten to add neither the client nor the Court is bound by the lawyer’s statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client’s instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client
Friday, 4 September 2015
Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh (Supreme Court)
Generally, admissions of fact made by a counsel is binding upon their principals as long as they are unequivocal; where, however, doubt exists as to a purported admission, the Court should be wary to accept such admissions until and unless the counsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to make such admissions. Furthermore, a client is not bound by a statement or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make. Lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We hasten to add neither the client nor the Court is bound by the lawyer’s statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client’s instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CIT(A) cannot direct reopening of years not under appea
Recently, the Hon’ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (‘ITAT’) in the case of Mr. Chandanmal Nagaraj v. Assistant Commissioner of I...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Recent judicial pronouncements across different forums have clarified several important aspects of Indian income tax law, particularly relat...
-
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 (ITA 2025) and the accompanying Income-tax Rules, 2026 introduces a significantly overhauled co...
-
An eminent concern within the GST framework pertains to the entitlement of Input Tax Credit (ITC) concerning expenditures associated with In...
-
Introduction Employee welfare is a cornerstone of corporate responsibility, and gratuity forms a critical part of the social security benefi...
-
The overall effective tax rate of a U.S. multinational corporation may have significant impact on the value of its stock. Therefore, it ...
-
Clarifications from the GST Council The GST Council has recommended the following clarifications on ISD and cross charge:
-
Introduction: India's Green Economy and the Tax Conundrum India stands as a global powerhouse in the fight against climate change, c...
-
In a landmark ruling, the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, in the case of Amith Vishnaw Gudimela, held that a delay in filing Form-67 cannot be the so...
-
The Delhi High Court held that interest earned on funds temporarily parked in bank deposits during the project setup phase is capital in n...
No comments:
Post a Comment