Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1968 - HC - Indian LawsSpecific performance of the contract between the parties - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Whether the Claimant was ready and willing to perform its obligations under the contract? - HELD THAT:- After examining the statutory provisions, the majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal referred to several Judicial Precedents including the Judgments of the Privy Council as well as that of the Supreme Court. After setting out the Judicial Pronouncements, the majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal referred to the pleadings between parties as well as the rival submissions and thereafter considered this issue on merits. After applying the statutory provisions and the legal principles that have been set out in Judicial Pronouncements, the majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal held that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, time was never made the essence of the contract. It held that it is settled law that in case of transfer of immovable property, normally time is not the essence of the contract and the present case was not an exception to this general rule. The majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal has given a specific finding that the so called meeting that was held on 24th November, 2004 fixing a deadline of 20th December, 2004 for completion of the transaction by the Claimant was not acceptable. The majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the earlier meeting held on 10th November, 2004 and the so called gist of the discussions prepared on 26th November, 2004 on the basis of the meeting dated 24th November, 2004, was not proved by the Respondents. The majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal noted that in fact the case of the Claimant was that on 24th November, 2004 no date of completion of the transaction was ever agreed or fixed. This being so, coupled with the fact that the Respondents were unable to prove that any such deadline was agreed to in the meeting on 24th November, 2004, they could not be allowed to proceed on the basis that the completion date of the transaction was fixed on 20th December, 2004 - Taking all this material into consideration, the majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal finally held that time was never made the essence of the contract. There are no merits in either of the appeals. They are, accordingly dismissed.
|