https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289712 A prior adjudication bars relitigation only where the same matter was directly and substantially in issue and actually decided; the appellant's separate grievance on underestimation of its chrome ore requirement was therefore not hit by res judicata or constructive res judicata. However, silence in earlier proceedings, failure to reserve the right to challenge the assessment, and allowing others to act on the basis of the order amounted to waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. The later State order was treated as implementing, not contradicting, the earlier Central order, and no ground for interference in discretionary appellate jurisdiction was made out. The challenged grievance was dismissed and the allocation process left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:07:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289712 A prior adjudication bars relitigation only where the same matter was directly and substantially in issue and actually decided; the appellant's separate grievance on underestimation of its chrome ore requirement was therefore not hit by res judicata or constructive res judicata. However, silence in earlier proceedings, failure to reserve the right to challenge the assessment, and allowing others to act on the basis of the order amounted to waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. The later State order was treated as implementing, not contradicting, the earlier Central order, and no ground for interference in discretionary appellate jurisdiction was made out. The challenged grievance was dismissed and the allocation process left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289712