India - need to know if emails between client and attorney are acceptable in court of law in India?

Question

My lawyer who was working and was hired by my POA whose powers have since been revoked,is now asking to verify authenticy of my emails to him (the lawyer). ie. he wants to know whether I, his client, is actually writing the emails to him. What are the laws governing the authenticity of emails and their acceptibility in the Indian courts for any pending cases?

This is a serious matter and would like to get replies from those who know and can cite laws pertaining to the admissibility and authenticity of emails.

Thank you.

Answer 1

In case you had given a POA to a person that was registered in India or attested by the Notary public in a foreign country then the process to get this POA revoked is only through Deed of revocation of POA that to has to be got registered in India or attested by the Notary Public in a foreign country. This deed of revocation should have been placed on the record of the court/authority for which the POA was given to this person & this person duly informed of this revocation by a proper notice to him also a public notice to be published in the newspapers regarding this revocation. This is the proper process to be followed by you but I think your lawyer failed to tell you this process or he himself was not aware of this, better check the authenticity of you lawyer whether he is actually qualified or self made through false LLB degrees. As far revoking the services of the lawyer so engaged by your POA is concerned it should also be informed by a proper notice to him with reference to the deed of revocation of POA. As far confirmation of this fact by email is concerned it should be followed by a proper signed notice with this regard to the lawyer & should have been mentioned in the email itself. The copy of the notice regarding dispensing the services of the lawyers can be produced in the court as secondary evidence in this regard. As far producing email as primary evidence is concerned its authenticity can always be challenged & has to go through long process of lab testing through authorized scientific process & experts. On receipt of a positive report to its authenticity it will be admissible as primary evidence in a case.

Answer 2

You have revoked the PoA of the person who hired a lawyer on your behalf. Have you also discharged the lawyer and if not, do you want to ? If you have not discharged the lawyer and you do want to, please immediately send him a letter stating that he is no longer authorised to represent you in any manner. Unfortunately, if you want to engage another lawyer in a pending matter, you will have to obtain a consent / NOC from the previous lawyer or you need to obtain a Discharge order from the Court. High Courts tend to be particular about this. If you will henceforth appear in person in the pending matter, you need not get any consent. You are under no obligation to answer any queries from the lawyer about your e mails to him. If he is discharged and the e mails pertain to the matter he previously handled, it is no longer his concern. The e mails to be admissible in evidence would have to be proved by the party offering them in evidence. Please get a copy of the Indian Evidence Act and go through the relevant sections.
You will find a copy of the bare act on:
http://www.helplinelaw.com/bareact/

Answer 3

Provider can authenticate, you can say you wrote that e-mail or not under auth.

I hope you have a print out from your send list. A lap top can be taken to the court and pluged in, hope the court has the hook ups, you may need to borrow a wireless.

Costly process.

It is like any evidence.

Answer 4

The courtroom perspectives it the comparable as a letter. All rules that word to the substitute of enterprise by ability of letter additionally word to emails. thrilling area notice, those rules additionally word to the leaving of voice mails. Leaving a voice mail on somebody's answering device may be the comparable as putting a letter of their mailbox with the comparable information. the common reasoning at the back of it is that courts will in many situations word previous rules to new advancements in verbal substitute. It is sensible that the 1st rules that could word to a clean style of verbal substitute might merely be those that have been used for previous varieties of verbal substitute.

Answer 5

I don't see why he can't accept emails. There are new cyber laws now that deal with electronic information, Im sure there must be something about accepting emails in there.

Answer 6

Yes. This is evidence.