Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Citation: 1971 PTD 99
Court: Madras High Court
Year: 1967
Decision Date: 1967-08-03
Parties: A. S. N. M. IDRIS AMBALAM vs M. ABDUL HAKIM
Case cited as 1971 PTD 99
Court Name: Madras High Court Judge(s): Anantanarayanan Title: A. S. N. M. IDRIS AMBALAM vs M. ABDUL HAKIM Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 2458 of 1965 Date of Judgment:1967-08-03 Reported As: 1971 PTD 99 Result: accordingly set aside JUDGMENT JUDGMENT This revision proceeding involves a point of some interest, with regard to the precise effect of section 1370) and (2) of the Income-tax Act (43 of 1961), in relation to interrogatories served on a party to a suit under Order XI, Civil Procedure Code. The facts are not in dispute, that the interrogatories included one question whether the respondent to the present proceedings had shown a particular amount in his income-tax return for a particular year. The respondent declined to answer this question, claiming privilege and the learned fourth assistant Judge of the City Civil Court has upheld the claim of privilege. I am afraid that the order of the Court below proceeds on a misconception, and that the view taken by the learned Judge is not correct. Privileges of parties to a proceeding generally are to be found in the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872); particularly 'such ,sections as section 22 which relates to communications during marriage, section 126 relating to bar of disclosure of professional communications of barristers and lawyers, sec--petition 124 which concerns official communications, etc. There is nothing in these sections to prevent a person from being asked whether he had shown a particular asset or…
Read the full judgment on Al Wakeelo — Pakistan's AI-powered legal research platform.