Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Gomathinayagam Pillai And Ors vs Pallaniswami Nadar on 2 September, 1966
".............It is settled law that the fixation of the period within which the contract has to be performed does not make the stipulation as to time the essence of the contract. When a contract relates to sale of immovable property, it will normally be presumed that the time is not the essence of the contract (vide Gomathinayagam Pillai v. .Palaniswami Nadar, ). It may also be mentioned that the language used in the agreement is not such as to indicate, in unmistakable terms that the time is of the essence of the contract. The intention to treat time as the essence of the contract may be evidenced by circumstances which are sufficiently strong to displace the normal presumption that in a contract of sale of land stipulation as to time is not the essence of the contract."
K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997
In the case of K.S. Vidyanandan (supra), in para 11, considering the fluctuation in the prices of the real estate, particularly in the metropolitan cities and in the urban areas, the Supreme Court has toned down the rigor of the normal rule in the respect of the immovable property contracts but has not done away or varied the normal presumption laid down earlier, it is a caution to consider the circumstances in the developing context. The relevant portion of Para 11 reads as under :--
China Cotton Exporters vs Beharilal Ramcharan Cottonmills Ltd on 17 February, 1961
The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958
The General Clauses Act, 1897
The Companies Act, 1956
Govind Prasad Chaturvedi vs Hari Dutt Shastri And Another on 28 January, 1977
In the case of Govind Prasad Chaturvedi (supra). The Supreme Court reiterates the normal presumption that the time was not of the essence of the contract relating to the sale of immovable property. The Supreme Court has observed in para 8 as under :--
Bank Of Mysore Ltd., Avenue Road, ... vs B.D. Naidu on 2 December, 1953
1