https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277635 The prior decision did not bar the present claim because the later dispute arose under a new statute creating a different legal situation, so res judicata did not apply. The petitioner's agreement was treated as giving only contractual rights, or at most a licence to enter the forest and collect tendu leaves, not a proprietary right in the leaves themselves. Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 created a State monopoly over purchase and transport of tendu leaves and permitted purchase only from the State Government, its officers or agents. The petitioner therefore had no enforceable right to resist the statutory scheme, and the petition failed. en-us Wed, 06 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:10:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277635 The prior decision did not bar the present claim because the later dispute arose under a new statute creating a different legal situation, so res judicata did not apply. The petitioner's agreement was treated as giving only contractual rights, or at most a licence to enter the forest and collect tendu leaves, not a proprietary right in the leaves themselves. Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 created a State monopoly over purchase and transport of tendu leaves and permitted purchase only from the State Government, its officers or agents. The petitioner therefore had no enforceable right to resist the statutory scheme, and the petition failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277635