Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

If it was not the intention of the parties that time should be of the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing at or before the specified time; but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure.

If, in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor's failure to perform his promise at the time agreed, the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless at the time of such acceptance, he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so".

50. It was then contended on behalf of the respondent that though there has been a violation of Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, the contracts are voidable and not void. I cannot accept this argument as correct: I think that the provisions of Section 175 (3) are mandatory in character and, therefore, a contract in order to be binding and enforceable against the Union Government must be made in strict conformity with the formalities prescribed by Section 175 (3). If these formalities are not complied with, the contracts are void and not enforceable against the Union Government. Section 175 (3) deliberately circumscribes the power of the Governor-General to make contracts which bind the Central Government.