Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Gopal Prasad Sinha vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 1970 cites

Pritam Singh And Anr. vs The State Of Punjab on 4 November, 1955

In our opinion, the High Court came to the correct con- clusion. The basic principle underlying the rule of issue- estoppel is that the same issue of fact and law must have been determined in the previous litigation. The question then arises : Was it the same issue of fact which was determined in the earlier 62 2 case ? A person may be acting as a cashier at one period and may not be acting as a cashier at another period, especially as in this case it was found that the appellant had never been appointed as a cashier. He was a temporary senior accounts clerk who was alleged to be doing the work of a cashier. If there is any likelihood of facts or conditions changing during the two periods which are under consideration then it is difficult to say that the prosecution would be bound by the finding in a previous trial on a similar issue of fact. It seems to us that the later finding must necessarily be in contradiction of the previous determination. There can be no such contradiction if the periods are different and the facts relating to the carrying on of the duties of a cashier are different. The learned counsel has referred to a number of cases of this Court where the rule of issue-estoppel has been approved; e.g. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab(1); Manipur Administration v. Thokchom Bira Singh (2) ; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kokkiligada Meeraiah(3); and Assistant Collector of Customs v. L. R. Malwani(4), but these cases do not support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 324 - Full Document

Manipur Administration vs Thokchom, Bira Singh on 11 March, 1964

In our opinion, the High Court came to the correct con- clusion. The basic principle underlying the rule of issue- estoppel is that the same issue of fact and law must have been determined in the previous litigation. The question then arises : Was it the same issue of fact which was determined in the earlier 62 2 case ? A person may be acting as a cashier at one period and may not be acting as a cashier at another period, especially as in this case it was found that the appellant had never been appointed as a cashier. He was a temporary senior accounts clerk who was alleged to be doing the work of a cashier. If there is any likelihood of facts or conditions changing during the two periods which are under consideration then it is difficult to say that the prosecution would be bound by the finding in a previous trial on a similar issue of fact. It seems to us that the later finding must necessarily be in contradiction of the previous determination. There can be no such contradiction if the periods are different and the facts relating to the carrying on of the duties of a cashier are different. The learned counsel has referred to a number of cases of this Court where the rule of issue-estoppel has been approved; e.g. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab(1); Manipur Administration v. Thokchom Bira Singh (2) ; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kokkiligada Meeraiah(3); and Assistant Collector of Customs v. L. R. Malwani(4), but these cases do not support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 132 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Assistant Collector Of Customs & Anr vs U.L.R. Malwani And Anr on 16 October, 1968

In our opinion, the High Court came to the correct con- clusion. The basic principle underlying the rule of issue- estoppel is that the same issue of fact and law must have been determined in the previous litigation. The question then arises : Was it the same issue of fact which was determined in the earlier 62 2 case ? A person may be acting as a cashier at one period and may not be acting as a cashier at another period, especially as in this case it was found that the appellant had never been appointed as a cashier. He was a temporary senior accounts clerk who was alleged to be doing the work of a cashier. If there is any likelihood of facts or conditions changing during the two periods which are under consideration then it is difficult to say that the prosecution would be bound by the finding in a previous trial on a similar issue of fact. It seems to us that the later finding must necessarily be in contradiction of the previous determination. There can be no such contradiction if the periods are different and the facts relating to the carrying on of the duties of a cashier are different. The learned counsel has referred to a number of cases of this Court where the rule of issue-estoppel has been approved; e.g. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab(1); Manipur Administration v. Thokchom Bira Singh (2) ; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kokkiligada Meeraiah(3); and Assistant Collector of Customs v. L. R. Malwani(4), but these cases do not support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 139 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1