NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

SC: Merely Having Explicit Clause Not Sufficient to Make Time Essence of The Contract - (15 Nov 2021)

CONTRACT

Supreme Court has observed that merely having an explicit clause may not be sufficient to make time the essence of the contract. The contractual clauses having extension procedure and imposition of liquidated damages, are good indicators that time was not the essence of the contract. The Court added whether time is of the essence in a contract, has to be culled out from the reading of the entire contract as well as the surrounding circumstances.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   TIME ESSENCE OF CONTRACT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved