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)
Section 56(2)(ix): Forfeiture of Advance Money Received – A Critical Analysis
The Dual Conditions for Taxability Section 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act imposes tax liability on sums received as advance or otherwise du...
-
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...
-
Selling a property can trigger a significant tax liability in the form of capital gains tax. However, the Income-tax Act, 1961, allows you...
-
Clarifications from the GST Council The GST Council has recommended the following clarifications on ISD and cross charge:
-
The Indian tax landscape has witnessed several significant judicial pronouncements in recent months. From the Supreme Court to various Hig...
-
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recently notified the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Amendment Rules, 2025, introducing important p...
-
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime continues to evolve through judicial interpretations. From the Supreme Court to various High Court...
-
Sr No Due Date Related to Compliance to be made 1 11.07.2026 GST ...
-
In the case of "Maya Gopinathan vs Anoop SB 2024 INSC 334," the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided insightful guidance on the de...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Bombay High Court (...
No comments:
Post a Comment