Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

84. On the aspect of waiver, the decision in P. Dsouza (supra) and Panchanan Dhara (supra) are relevant. In P Dsouza (supra), it was held that where part payment of the consideration was accepted without demur at a later date, and extension of time for completion of the contract was sought at a date later than the month stipulated in the agreement, it could be concluded that the parties did not intend time to be of the essence of the contract or, in any event, there was waiver of the right to terminate the contract on grounds of time being of the essence of contract. In Panchanan Dhara (supra), it was held that extension of time for performance of a contract need not always be in a written instrument but can be implied from the conduct of the parties. Contract is a creature of will of the parties and they can always, in terms of section 62 of the Contract Act, novate or substitute, alter or amend their contract by mutual consent. The contract cannot take away the right of the parties to mutually agree to alter or amend the same, or the manner in which the contract is so altered or amended. Even if parties had earlier agreed to a mode for making such an amendment, there cannot be any absolute rule or proposition that the amendment cannot be made otherwise, if the parties mutually decide to give up the term laying down such a restriction. The difficulty would be only in proving such an amendment or change in the contract, but that by itself cannot mean that under no circumstances the parties, mutually, cannot so amend or alter the contract. Perhaps the element of burden and onus would lie heavily on the party who submits that there was such an amendment, if denied by the other party. However, in a case where such novation or alteration is writ large from the conduct of the parties, the question of evidence may also not present a great difficulty.