• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Our Legal Correspondent

CHENNAI, Feb. 15

IN a case pertaining to the removal of a person as a director on the basis of an opinion given by the solicitor, the Madras High Court has held that the opinion of the solicitor was only a view expressed by him.

Dismissing appeals against the judgement of a single judge striking out the second defendant (solicitors - King and Patridge) from the case, a Division Bench comprising Mr Justice S. Jagadeesan and Mr Justice P.D. Dinakaran said that it was a matter between the solicitor and its client. At times, the client might seek a second opinion from any other solicitor or advocate. It was for the client to accept the opinion and to act or not to act on the basis of such opinion.

If the plea of the appellant (Mr R. Vetriselvan) was sustained, then it would amount to opening of the flood-gates to file suits against the advocates appearing for the other side on the basis that the other side acted upon the advice of his counsel which advice could not be sustained in law.

The Bench observed that even on principle, the plaintiff was not misled by the solicitor of the first defendant (Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Tuticorin). If the first defendant had been misled by their solicitor and thereby the plaintiff was affected, it was open to him to proceed against the first defendant alone. In case the first defendant's action was held to be illegal, then it was a matter between the first defendant and the plaintiff.

So far as action against the second defendant was concerned, the plaintiff could not be in the picture anywhere. "Hence, we are of the view that the learned single Judge had rightly allowed the application filed by the second defendant for striking out their name from the plaint."

The plaintiff was removed from the directorship of the first defendant bank (Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank) by a resolution dated June 27, 2000. The suit was filed for a declaration that the said resolution was null and void and unenforceable.

The single judge by order in appeal allowed the applications filed by the first and second defendants and dismissed the injunction applications of the plaintiff finding that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to maintain the suit and the second defendant could not be sued on the basis of the opinion given by them. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff went on appeal.

The Bench said that it did not find any merit in the appeal and it was dismissed.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
`Solicitor's view not subject to litigation'

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line