Case Details

Citation(s)
1959 SLG 28 1959 SLD 28 1959 PLD 178
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 57 of 1953, decision Date : 27th November 1958. Regular First Appeal No. 57 of 1953, decision Date : 27th November 1958.
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE, A. R. CHANGEZ, JUSTICE

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ROBERT COTTON ASSOCIATION LIMITED

VS

FIRM INAYAT ULLAH & CO., GUJRANWALA

Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 55

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 55 Contract including term that buyer would send to seller instructions for despatch of goods by a certain date Time not necessarily essence of contract. Held, that the mere fact that it was mentioned in the contract that the buyer would send instructions to seller for the despatch of goods, by the"15th of March 1951" was not by itself sufficient to establish that that date was the essence of the contract, especially, when delivery of the goods was to continue till May 1951. Section 55 of the Contract Act provides that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time, and fails to do it at or before that time the contract becomes voidable at the option of the promisee"if the intention of the parties was that time should be of the essence of the contract". The question whether time is or is not of the essence of the contract has to be determined on the facts of each case. If the seller did not take any steps to repudiate the contract on or about the 15th of March, the buyer was entitled to demand delivery within a reasonable time. Jamshed Codaram v. Burjorji Dhanjibhai 43 I A 26 ref. Ramchand v. Central Flour Mills of Kasur and others A I R 1935 Lah. 192 ; Roshan Lal v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. I L R 33 All. 166 and Muhammad Habibullah v. Muhammad Shafi I L R 41 All. 324 mentioned. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 22¬Respondent may support decree in his favour on any ground decided against him in Court below without filing any appeal or cross objections. The respondent is within his rights to support the decree granted in his favour on any of the grounds decided against him in the Court below, without filing any appeal or cross objections. Venkata Rao v,. Satyanarayanamurthy A I R 1943 Mad. 698 ref. Cheda Lal v. Badullah I L R 11 All. 35 mentioned. (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73 Buyer depositing earnest money with seller Contract not providing for forfeiture of earnest money on breach of contract nor any stipulation by way of penalty Seller cannot retain earnest money on breach of contract by buyer in absence of proof of any damage or loss occasioned by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492