DR K. MADAN v. KRISHNAWATI (SMT) AIR 1997 SC 579

the premises in question were residential and according to the terms of the lease given by the Government the said premises could not be used for any other purposes. A doctor was allowed to use the premises up to 500 square feet as his clinic provided the doctor resided in the said premises. Inasmuch as the appellant had shifted from the Lajpat Nagar house to her own house in East of Kailash, therefore, the submission was that her continued user of the premises in question only as a clinic was against the terms of the lease.
In any case there can be no estoppel against the statute. We are of the view that the appellant is liable to be evicted unless he has already stopped or stops immediately the misuser of the premises and pays the misuse charges for the period of misuse. Continued wrongful user cannot be permitted by levying penalty but if the authorities do not require the stoppage of misuser, but merely ask for payment of penalty or compensation, then in such a case, an order of eviction or for stoppage of premises need not be passed and it will be sufficient if compensation is required to be paid.

Evidence- issue estoppel Mcllkenny v. Chief Constable, ((1980)2 All ER 227) The accused alleged in the criminal proceedings that he was assaulted by police officers to procure confession while in custody. But the assault was not proved and the accused convicted. Civil proceedings were also initiated by the accused against the police officers claiming damages for assault. The questions arose as to whether "issue estoppel" will apply and whether the civil action is an abuse of process of court. It was held that the plaintiffs were estopped from raising in their action against the chief constable the issue whether they had been assaulted by his police officers because that issue had already been finally determined against them by a court of competent jurisdiction in the criminal proceedings to which they were parties and in those proceedings they had a full and fair opportunity of presenting their case and in all the circumstances it would not be just to allow them to reopen the issue.

CrPC-Sec 300 Amritlal Ratilal Mehta v. State of Gujarat, ((1980)1 SCC 121) an earlier finding which has attained finality is binding in the subsequent proceedings in the case. The question is not whether the ingredients of the two offences are the same or substantially the same. That question would be relevant if the plea was one autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. The question is not even of 'Issue estoppel' properly so called as there were no separate trials. The question really is about the binding force and the conclusive nature, at later stage of a case, of a finding of fact finally determined at an earlier stage of the case which would depend on the question as to what the allegations were, what facts were required to be proved and what findings were arrived at.