https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189442 Res judicata applies only to matters directly and substantially in issue that were necessary to the earlier decision; collateral or incidental findings do not ordinarily bar later proceedings. Applying that principle, an earlier Section 92 CPC judgment did not preclude fresh inquiry because its wakf finding was not decisive for the statutory question under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The 19.1.1967 inquiry likewise did not create a bar, as it was later displaced by a subsequent decision on the same issue and had not considered the wider statutory definition. The preliminary objection based on res judicata therefore failed, and the matter remained to be decided on merits. en-us Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2017 18:31:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189442 Res judicata applies only to matters directly and substantially in issue that were necessary to the earlier decision; collateral or incidental findings do not ordinarily bar later proceedings. Applying that principle, an earlier Section 92 CPC judgment did not preclude fresh inquiry because its wakf finding was not decisive for the statutory question under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The 19.1.1967 inquiry likewise did not create a bar, as it was later displaced by a subsequent decision on the same issue and had not considered the wider statutory definition. The preliminary objection based on res judicata therefore failed, and the matter remained to be decided on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189442